IMPORTANT POINTS
When orders of the Court are clear and unambiguous it is not open to contemnor to interpret the same.
Court’s order restraining alienation/transfer of assets will cover and govern all assets, existing and subsequent.
Under Article 129 of the Constitution Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings relating to contempt of High Court, more so when no prejudice is caused or visited upon the contemnor.

Headnote:(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Orders clear and unambiguous – Not open to contemnor to interpret the same – Orders to disclose all assets have to be complied in full – Respondent 3 not disclosing receipt of US$ 40 million – aggravated violation of the orders. (Para 21, 24)
       (1999) 2 SCC 537 – Referred
       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Proceedings before High Court and Supreme Court arising out of the same OA before DRT – High Court restraining respondents from alienating any asset – Whether ‘asset’ meant assets in hand of respondents on the date of order or future and subsequent assts also – Held, ‘assets’ in High Court order covered and governed all assets, existing and subsequent – Transferring funds to trust whose sole beneficiary was respondent 3, held, aggravating violation of High Court orders. (Para 22, 23)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 129 – Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings relating to contempt of High Court – More so when no prejudice is caused or visited upon the contemnor. (Para 26, 27)
       (1991) 4 SCC 406 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The petitioners–banks [State Bank of India, Axis Bank Limited, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, The Federal Bank Limited, IDBI Bank Limited, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce] had individually advanced to Respondent No.1 loans of thousands of crores of rupees.
       By Master Debts Recast Agreement dated 21.10.2010 and other related documents the existing loans were restructured and treated as a single facility.
       Respondent Nos.2 and 3 executed a corporate guarantee dated 21.12.2010 and a personal guarantee dated 21.12.2010 respectively, guaranteeing repayment of the entire amount due. Further, since the above accounts were classified as non-performing assets, the petitioners–banks filed OA against Respondent Nos.1 to 9 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, inter alia seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two only) from Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
       Despite applications having been filed requiring Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to disclose details of their assets on oath, said respondents never disclosed the assets and instead, said respondents secretly tried to dispose of their assets with an intention to defeat the recovery proceedings pending before DRT Bengaluru.
       DRT Bengaluru heard arguments only with respect to the Garnishee Application on 02.03.2016 and posted the matters for orders on 04.03.2016 but failed to consider the other applications.
       The petitioners–banks moved the High Court seeking appropriate directions to DRT Bengaluru to hear and dispose of the applications moved by the petitioners–banks on 02.03.2016 expeditiously. The High Court refused to pass any ad interim direction.
       Finding of the Court:
       Respondent No.3 is guilty of having committed contempt of court.
       Result: Home Ministry directed to secure presence of respondent 3 and produce him on 10.7.2017.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. State Bank of India and 13 other banks [State Bank of India, Axis Bank Limited, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, The Federal Bank Limited, IDBI Bank Limited, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce.] have filed the instant special leave petitions challenging the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos.12191-12194 of 2016 refusing to pass any ad interim order against Respondent Nos.3, 10 and 11. According to the petitioners–banks they had individually advanced to Respondent No.1 loans of thousands of crores of rupees; that by Master Debts Recast Agreement dated 21.10.2010 and other related documents the existing loans were restructured and treated as a single facility; and that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 executed a corporate guarantee dated 21.12.2010 and a personal guarantee dated 21.12.2010 respectively, guaranteeing repayment of the entire amount due. Further, since the above accounts were classified as non-performing assets, the petitioners–banks filed OA No.766 of 2013 against Respondent Nos.1 to 9 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “DRT Bengaluru), inter alia seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two only) from Respondent Nos.1 to 4. It is the case of the petitioners-banks that despite applications having been filed requiring Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to disclose details of their assets on oath, said respondents never disclosed the assets and instead, said respondents secretly tried to dispose of their assets with an intention to defeat the recovery proceedings pending before DRT Bengaluru.

2. According to the petitioners–banks, on 25.02.2016 Respondent Nos.10 and 11 disclosed to London Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively that Respondent No.3 had resigned as Chairman of Respondent No.11; that Respondent No.10 would pay to Respondent No.3 a sum of US$ 75 million; that out of said amount a sum of US$ 40 million would be paid immediately; and that Respondent No.3 had made a statement to the press confirming said transaction and had stated that he intended to settle in London. In these circumstances, the petitioners–banks moved four interlocutory applications before DRT Bengaluru on 02.03.2016 seeking interim prayers:-

“(i) to freeze the passport of Respondent No.3

(ii) to issue an arrest warrant against Respondent No.3,

(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million, and

(iv) to issue a direction to Respondent No.3 to disclose his assets on oath.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners–banks that DRT Bengaluru heard arguments only with respect to the Garnishee Application on 02.03.2016 and posted the matters for orders on 04.03.2016 but failed to consider the other applications. Aggrieved by such non-consideration of the interlocutory applications by DRT Bengaluru, despite the urgency and the enormous amounts involved in the matter, the petitioners–banks moved the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition Nos.12191-12194 of 2016 seeking appropriate directions to DRT Bengaluru to hear and dispose of the applications moved by the petitioners–banks on 02.03.2016 expeditiously. Since the High Court refused to pass any ad interim direction, the aforesaid special leave petitions were filed in this Court.

4. By Order dated 09.03.2016 this Court issued notice returnable on 30.03.2016 and also permitted the petitioners–banks to serve notice on Respondent No.3 through the Indian High Commission, London or any other Embassy. The Order dated 30.03.2016 discloses that Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 455

Cases Referred (2)