Back
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
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.
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.
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 t....
The court upheld the closure of a contempt case, allowing revival post-review petition resolution.
The court establishes that failure to issue consequential orders can result in contempt proceedings, emphasizing the respondents' duty to act on Court findings.
The court emphasized that a writ petition should not be disposed of as premature when there is sufficient material on record to adjudicate the grievance and hold for or against the petitioner on meri....
Contempt proceedings stayed pending Division Bench order outcome, liberty for revival granted.
Court upholds closure of contempt petition and grants liberty for revival pending review outcome.
Compliance with court orders is essential and must be enforced regardless of pending appeals, as established by Supreme Court directives.
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
The court affirmed that a show cause notice issued by SEBI is valid despite claims of delay and non-application of mind, emphasizing the necessity of fair opportunity for the petitioners to respond.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
