Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1062
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 847-848 of 2017 In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 16729-16730 of 2012
Decided On : 23-09-2019
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Ashu Kansal, Karan Batura, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Unless earlier order is modified, alleged contemnors are bound to obey orders of Apex Court as well as High Court.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Debt recovery matter – Both High Court and this Court had clearly directed that out of amount recovered by sale of properties of borrowed Company by Alchemist, Rs.4.5 Crores were to be paid to KMBL, and Rs.9 Crores were to be retained by Alchemist – Any amount in excess was to be deposited in Court – Unless earlier order is modified, alleged contemnors were bound to obey orders of this Court as well as High Court – However, it may not be necessary to take action against alleged contemnors under Contempt of Courts Act, in view of fact that pursuant to the order of this Court they have now deposited Rs.4.5 Crores – Amount of Rs.4.5 Crores deposited by Alchemist shall be paid to KMBL along with interest – This payment will however be subject to decision of High Court with regard to amount actually due to KMBL – Iif High Court finds that a lesser amount is due to KMBL then KMBL shall refund excess amount along with interest as determined by High Court to Alchemist – Contempt Petitions closed. (Paras 11, 12 and 14)
Facts of the Case:
Present Contempt Petitions have been filed by petitioner alleging that alleged contemnors have violated the order of this court dated 07.05.2012.
Findings of the Court:
On going through the records and on careful perusal of entire material and the orders, we cannot appreciate conduct of Alchemist and its officers. Both High Court and this Court had clearly directed that out of the amount recovered by sale of the properties of the borrowed Company by Alchemist, Rs.4.5 Crores were to be paid to KMBL, and Rs.9 Crores were to be retained by Alchemist. Any amount in excess was to be deposited in Court. This was in addition to the disbursal of Rs. 5 crores already made in which Alchemist got Rs. 3 Crores and KMBL got Rs. 2 Crores. This order of 07.05.2012 has not been varied, modified or vacated by any subsequent order. The alleged contemnors can derive no benefit from the order of this Court dated 02.07.2014 permitting them to approach the High Court. Unless the earlier order is modified, the alleged contemnors were bound to obey the orders of this Court as well as the High Court.
Result : Contempt Petitions closed.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. These Contempt Petitions have been filed by the petitioner alleging that the alleged contemnors have violated the order of this court dated 07.05.2012.
2. The factual background is that a Company known as Coventry Coil-O-Matic, Haryana Limited (hereinafter referred to as the borrower Company) had taken loans from ICICI Bank, IDBI and IFCI (consortium Banks). ICICI Bank assigned the debts payable to it by the borrower Company to the petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (hereinafter called as KMBL). IFCI assigned its non-performing assets with regard to the same loan facilities, initially to Dhir and Dhir Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd. now known as Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Alchemist’). It appears IDBI also assigned the debts payable to it to Alchemist.
3. KMBL filed proceedings for recovery of its dues i.e. Rs. 4,72,06,961/- before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. Alchemist initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the KMBL. The borrower Company filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings and the SARFAESI Act. Both were heard together. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the borrower Company. A Letters Patent Appeal No. 1755 of 2010 (LPA for short) was filed by the borrower Company. In this appeal, an interim order was passed on 09.08.2011, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“13. Accordingly, we direct that without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties, the appellant must pay a sum of Rs. 12 crores to Alchemist and Rs. 6.5 crores to Kotak Mahindra. The creditors will be at liberty to proceed to recover the same by sale of land appurtenant to plant and machinery which is said to be about 18 acres. The sale will be by way of a tripartite agreement under which the sale consideration will be received directly by the creditors and the documents will be executed by the appellant. The sale may be finalized after permission of this Court. Out of deposit of Rs. 5 crores in this Court, a sum of Rs. 3 crores be given to Alchemist and Rs. 2 crores to Kotak Mahindra Bank. This payment will be adjusted towards the amount mentioned above. After recovery of Rs. 13.5 crores, balance amount may be deposited in this Court. Interim order is modified accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx”
4. The aforesaid order was challenged by Alchemist by way of SLP (C) No. 34290 of 2011 as well as by the borrower Company by way of SLP No. 16729-16730 of 2012 in this Court. The SLP filed by the borrower Company was disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2012. This court partly modified the directions of the High Court quoted hereinabove, and passed the following order:
“1. Respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd and the petitioner-Company shall get the land, shown in Blocks ‘Z’ and ‘Y’ of the revised site plan (as discussed in the Court), to be placed on record by the petitioner, evaluated. Respondent No. 2 shall communicate the value of the land to the petitioner within four weeks from today.
2. An option shall be given to the petitioner to accept the said valuation within four weeks of the date of communication and pay the entire amount in terms thereof within a further period of eight weeks from the date of acceptance of the offer.
3. However, if the offer made by respondent No. 2 is not acceptable to the petitioner, it will be open to the said respondent to take steps for disposal of the land, as directed in the impugned order, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
4. Out of the amounts so realized, respondent No. 2 shall pay to respondent No. 9, the balance amount of Rs. 4.5 crores, as directed by the High Court.
5.
