1. Non-compliance with a court direction to furnish documents — Contempt proceedings. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1737
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Reliance Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vijayan A (Authorised Representative Of Securities And Exchange Board Of India) - Respondent
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 570 of 2022 in Crl.A. No. 1167 of 2022
Decided on : 07-11-2022
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR, Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv., Mr. Raghav Shankar, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Sharma, A.S., Adv., Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR, For M/s. R.K. Ashar & Co.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR, Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv., Mr. Raghav Shankar, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Sharma, A.S., Adv., Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR, For M/s. R.K. Ashar & Co.
The pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition, and the pendency of a stay application in a review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by the Court.
Headnote:
SEBI - Contempt of Court - Criminal Appeal No.1167/2002, Review Petition (Crl.) No.250/2022 - The court discussed the pendency of appeal, writ petition, and review petition, and emphasized that the pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition. It also highlighted that the pendency of a stay application in a review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compliance with an order for the respondent/SEBI to furnish a copy of documents, which had not been fulfilled. The respondent argued that a review petition was pending and urged no further order be passed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition, and emphasized that the pendency of a stay application in a review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by the Court.
Issues: Non-compliance with court directions, pendency of review petition, and the applicability of previous decisions to the current case.
Ratio Decidendi: The pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition. The pendency of a stay application in a review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by the Court.
Final Decision: The Court issued notice to the respondent, making it returnable on 02.12.2022, and dispensed with the physical presence of the alleged contemnor(s) for the time being.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the pendency of a review petition and a stay application therein precludes further orders or compliance with the original court direction. (Para 2 )
3. Pendency of a review petition or stay application does not equate to a stay of a final decision or justify unilateral non-compliance. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. The mere pendency of a review petition or a stay application therein cannot be a ground for a party to unilaterally stay compliance with a final court order. (Para 3 )
5. Notice issued to the respondent and physical presence of alleged contemnors dispensed with. (Para 5 , 7 )
6. Does the pendency of a review petition automatically stay the operation of a final court order?
No. The pendency of a review petition or a stay application within it cannot be equated with a stay of the final decision, nor can it justify a party's unilateral decision to not comply with court directions. (Para 3 )
7. Under what circumstances can contempt proceedings be stayed pending a stay application?
Contempt proceedings may be stayed when they are initiated against an ex-parte order while a stay application in a pending writ petition is yet to be heard and decided. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that despite order dated 05.08.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1167/2002 by which the respondent/SEBI was directed to furnish a copy of the documents, as mentioned in para 59, the same has not been furnished till date.
2. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the review petition preferred by the respondent is pending before this Court and, therefore, no further order be passed in the present proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. and another Vs. Sachidanand Dass and another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 as well as in State of J and K Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others (1992) 4 SCC 167.
3. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions and the subsequent order passed by this Court dated 12.10.2022 in Review Petition (Crl.) No.250/2022. The pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition. There is a final decision by this Court in an appeal. Merely because the stay application is pending in review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by this Court.
4. It is required to be noted that the State of J and K Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others (supra) was a case where against the ex-parte order passed by the learned Single Judge, pending writ petition, the contempt proceedings were initiated. Therefore, this Court observed that when the stay application is yet to be heard and decided and disposed of, the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated. Under the circumstances, the said decision(s) cannot be of any assistance to the respondent.
5. Issue notice to the respondent, making it returnable on 02.12.2022.
6. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondent.
7. Physical presence of the alleged contemnor(s) is dispensed with for the time being.
