Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 336
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M. R. SHAH, JJ.
Ashish Seth – Petitioner
Versus
Sumit Mittal And Others – Alleged Contemnors
Contempt Petition(C) No.34 of 2016 In Writ Petition(Criminal) No.5 of 2015
With
Narender Sharma Director of M/s Maximal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Ashish Seth And Another – Alleged Contemnors
Contempt Petition(C) No. 257 of 2016 in Writ Petition(Criminal) No.5 of 2015
With
Narender Sharma Director of M/S Maximal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd – Petitioner
Versus
Ashish Seth And Another – Alleged Contemnors
Contempt Petition(C) No. 889 of 2017 in Writ Petition(Criminal) No.5 of 2015
Decided On : 24-04-2020
For the Petitioner(s):Garima Prashad, Piyush Kant Roy, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Garima Prashad, Ayush Sharma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ankit Goel, Sachin Mittal, Bankey Bihari, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
All parties to consent terms are required to fully comply with terms of settlement/consent terms and consent order – One party cannot be permitted to say that that portion of settlement which is in their favour be executed and/or complied with and not other terms of settlement/consent terms/consent order.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Alleged non-compliance of Court passed in writ petition – MoS was placed before this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition and this Court recorded settlement in entirety and as agreed between parties and as prayed, MoS dated 04.05.2015 became a part of order and this Court directed parties to adhere to terms and conditions of settlement and undertakings given therein – This Court specifically further observed that every facet of it shall tantamount to an order of this Court and in case of failure parties shall be at liberty to move this Court for an appropriate direction – Disputes were commercial disputes and therefore all parties to disputes agreed to resolve all their disputes, which culminated into MoS and thereafter order passed by this Court – Entire object and purpose of entering into settlement was to resolve all disputes between parties – It is duty of Court that settlement entered into between parties and consent order passed by this Court should be given effect to in its letter and spirit – All parties to consent terms are required to fully comply with terms of settlement/consent terms and consent order – One party cannot be permitted to say that that portion of settlement which is in their favour be executed and/or complied with and not other terms of settlement/consent terms/consent order – Respondent Mittal Group have deliberately and willfully not fulfilled their obligations which they are required to fulfill under MoS dated 04.05.2015 – As such, they have rendered themselves liable for action under Contempt of Courts Act – Contempt Petitions Partly allowed. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the Case:
Present Contempt Petitions being Contempt Petition(C) No. 34/2016, Contempt Petition (C) No. 257/2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889/2017 are preferred by the respective applicants who as such were parties to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and also parties to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4.5.2015 which ultimately was made a part of the order passed by this Court dated 5.5.2015 disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.11/2015, to initiate the contempt proceedings against concerned respective respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition.
Findings of the Court:
Respondent Mittal Group in Contempt Petition No. 34 of 2016 have deliberately and willfully not fulfilled their obligations which they are required to fulfill under the MoS dated 04.05.2015 and as such they have rendered themselves liable for the action under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, before taking any further action, we propose to give further two months’ time to the respondents, namely, Shri Sumit Mittal, Shri Mathur Mittal and TFIPL to fulfill their part of obligations under the MoS dated 04.05.2015, more particularly.
Result : Contempt Petitions Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. All these Contempt Petitions being Contempt Petition(C) No. 34/2016, Contempt Petition (C) No. 257/2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889/2017 are preferred by the respective applicants who as such were parties to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and also parties to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4.5.2015 which ultimately was made a part of the order passed by this Court dated 5.5.2015 disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.11/2015, to initiate the contempt proceedings against concerned respective respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the present contempt petitions in nutshell are as under:
That one Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘TFIPL’) was a joint venture company constituted of two groups – one being the Seth Group [consisting of Mr. Surrender Seth, Mr. Ashish Seth, M/s Ferrous Forging Ltd., M/s Ferrous Alloys Forging Pvt. Ltd. (FAFPL), M/s Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd. (FTPL) and M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (FIPL)] and the second being the Mittal Group [consisting of Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. Madhur Mittal].
2.1 That TIFPL acquired some land at Sector 70 and some 48.05 acres of land at Sector 89, Faridabad. The said TIFPL also availed licences Nos. 34, 35 and 36 from competent authorities in the year 2007 in respect of the land bearing Sector 89 with an intent to develop the said Sector 89 land. Subsequently both the parties being Seth Group and Mittal Group agreed that the development in the said land be divided and carried out separately and thereupon the development rights in Sector 89 land, parcel of 48.03 acres of land belonging to TIFPL, was sold in the following manner:
| TFIPL 48.03 acres | | ||||
| TIDCO (in liquidation) 14.80 acres (Mittal Group) | ORS Limited 5.5 acres (third party) | FIPL 14.80 acres (Seth Group) Ferrous City Project | Heritage 2.8 acres (third party) | Pal Infrastructure 10.48 acres (third party) |
2.2 That certain disputes arose between both the groups in respect of the payment of liabilities out of TFIPL which gave rise to various litigations including Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 11/2015. The disputes were referred to mediation. A Memorandum of Settlement dated 4.5.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MOS’) was executed between the Seth Group, Mittal Group and TFIPL. The said MOS was produced before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.5/2015and this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition in terms of the MOS. Under the MOS and the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition which was disposed of in terms of MOS dated 4.5.2015 reciprocal obligations were to be fulfilled by both the Seth Group and the Mittal Group. The obligations of the Seth Group were as mentioned in paragraph 1 to 4 of the Contempt Petition No. 34/2016 and the obligations of the Mittal Group and TFIPL were as per Clauses 5.1 to 5.9 of the contempt petition. Broadly speaking the obligations of the Seth Group and the obligations of the Mittal Group under the MOS and the order passed by this Court were as under:
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SETH GROUP
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Amount in Rs. (Crores) | MoS Clause No. |
| 1 | Payment to TFIPL/Mittal group towards settlement of disputes | 10 (court deposit) 28.50 (by four cheques 38.50 | 1.1 1.1.2 |
| 2 | License Renewal fee to DGTCP on behalf of TFIPL/Mittal group | 1.47 | 1.3 |
| 3 | Bank Guarantee to secure EDC | 6.65 | 1.2.1 |
| 4 | Bank Guarantee to secure IDW performance | 3.55 | 1.4 |
| 5 | One time consultancy charges for renewal of license | 0.25 | 19 |
| 6 | Transfer 50% shareholding of Seth group in TFIPL at a price of Rs.50,000/- | 50.00 | 1.5 |
| 7 | Total Financial commitment under the | ||
