IMPORTANT POINT
Directions explicit in the judgment or “are plainly self-evident” can be taken into account for determining its disobedience or wilful violation.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the petitioners/applicants before the learned Single Judge in an application filed by them for taking appropriate action against the respondents herein for violating the order dated 23.02.2011. According to the appellants, the entire money paid by the National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’ for short) on account of acquisition of the company’s land, should have been deposited with the High Court, in the true spirit of the order dated 23.02.2011. To the extent relevant, for the purpose of the present case, it may be noted that of the total amount due to the company, the NHAI issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.94.16 crores approximately in favour of the Registrar of the High Court after deducting an amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/- by way of tax deducted at source (‘TDS’ for short). Thereafter, the company filed its income-tax return for the assessment year 2013-2014 and claimed and received refund of the entire amount covered by the TDS, after deducting the tax. According to the respondents, the amount was utilised for various purposes in connection with the affairs of the company. It is the stand of the respondents that the direction to deposit the amount with the High Court was given to the NHAI, and in having claimed, received and utilised the refund received from the Income-Tax Department, there is no violation of the order dated 23.02.2011.

3. Learned Single Judge was prima facie of the opinion that there was deliberate violation of the order dated 23.02.2011, and therefore, issued Rule to the respondents, returnable in six weeks, vide order dated 26.06.2015. There was also a direction that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company without securing the afore-mentioned amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/-.

4. Aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench leading to the impugned order.

5. The Division Bench, in the impugned order, took the view that the learned Single Judge should not have passed an order affecting the operation of bank accounts, and therefore, to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge was vacated. And thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

6. It may specifically be noted that the Division Bench has not interfered with the Rule issued to the respondents in the proceedings initiated under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the alleged violation of the order dated 23.02.2011. The Division Bench only vacated the order regarding operation of the bank accounts of the company without securing the amount of rupees ten crores and odd. To quote from the impugned order:-

“The order under appeal cannot, in our view, be sustained to the extent that the appellants have been restrained from operating their bank accounts without setting apart ten crores and odd. The two appeals and the connected stay applications are disposed of.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. Still further, the Division Bench also clarified that:-

“Having regard to the urgency and considering the fact that the contempt proceedings and the company applications are pending before the learned Single Bench, we have not issued any direction for affidavits.”

8. Thus, the limited question before us is whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge for securing the amount received by the respondents by way of refund from the Income-Tax Department.

9. In order to appreciate the above question, it is necessary to refer to the background under which the relevant orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. The most relevant amongst the orders is the one dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is one alleged to have been violated by the respondents. The text of the order reads as follows:-

“The Court: Mr. S.N. Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Baranagore Jute Factory PLC Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), the applicant in