SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Bom) 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
European Investment Ltd. .... Petitioners.
Versus
Triumph International Finance India Ltd. others.... Respondents.
Contempt Petition No. 88 of 2002 in Summary Suit No. 3846 of 2001, decided on 5-3-2004.
Advocates appeared :
N.G. Thakkar, Sr.A. with Bipin Joshi Pooniwala i/b. Yatin Shah, for petitioners.
S.H. Doctor, Sr.A. with Prakash Shinde i/b. M. Dhruva Co., for respondent Nos. 2, 3 4.
F.E. De vitre, Sr.A. with D.D. Madon i/b. Rustamji Ginwala, for respondent Nos. 1 6.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) and 12 - respondents guilty of breach of undertaking given to court - merely availability of remedy of execution proceedings cannot be a bar against contempt proceedings.

JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The grievance of the petitioners relates to the breach of undertaking given by the respondents and violation of the order passed by this Court on 29th January, 2002 in Summary Suit No. 3846 of 2001.

2. The petitioners are an Overseas Corporate Body, registered in Mauritius and having its representative office at New Marine Line, Mumbai and they are in the business of Shares and Securities through National Stock Exchange of India on repatriation basis under the portfolio investment scheme of Reserve Bank of India and they are registered Shares Brokers with the National Stock Exchange of India at Mumbai. In the course of their business, they entered into a transaction of buying, selling and dealing in securities of the Global Trade Systems Limited, Himachal Futuristics Communication Limited, etc., and in the process, had engaged the services of the respondent No. 1 as broker. In terms of the Reserve Bank of Indias guidelines, the delivery of shares sold by the petitioners were effected through the respondent No. 1 in accordance with the contract and accordingly the petitioners were to receive payment from the respondent No. 1 on 2nd February, 2001 and 26th February, 2001 to the extent of sum of Rs. 70,71,15,154.03 ps. In discharge of the said liability, the respondent No. 1 issued three cheques in favour of the petitioners, namely, the first Cheque No. 859642 dated 22nd February, 2001 for Rs. 34,43,94,866.63 ps., the second Cheque No. 859643 dated 22nd February, 2001 for Rs. 23,57,27,498.65 ps. and the third Cheque No. 859662 dated 26th February, 2001 for Rs. 12,69,92,788.75 ps., aggregating to Rs. 70,71,15,154.03 ps. The cheques were deposited by the petitioners in the Global Trust Bank for realisation. However, the cheque dated 26th February, 2001 was returned with the remarks "Refer to Drawer" and both the cheques dated 22nd February, 2001 when presented with the bankers were returned with the remark "Not arranged for". By letter dated 21st March, 2001 by the respondent No. 1, expressed regrets for the delay and requested for some more days to clear the dues. The petitioners inquired about the required period for clearance of dues by letter dated 21st March, 2001. Simultaneously, the petitioners communicated to the BRI and SEBI about the dishonour of the said cheques by their letter dated 22nd March, 2001, while by letter dated 12th March, 2001 addressed to the respondent No. 1 warned about the serious consequences of the failure to honour the cheques, which was followed by further letter dated 20th March, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated 10th April, 2001 communicated all the facts to the Chairman of Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and requested for appropriate immediate steps. Similar letter was addressed to the Assistant Vice President of National Stock Exchange of India Limited on 18th April, 2001, 10th May, 2001 and 22nd May, 2001. The National Stock Exchange of India by its letter dated 28th June, 2001 informed the petitioners about fixing of joint meeting on 5th July, 2001. The petitioners did not receive any amount till August, 2001, and, therefore, their Advocates served notice dated 20th August, 2001 upon the respondent No. 1 calling for payment of a sum of Rs. 70,71,15,154.03 ps. together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice which was followed by the suit being Summary Suit No. 3846 of 2001 for recovery of the said amount along with the interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. In the said suit, the parties arrived at settlement and the respondents confirmed their liability in the said principle sum of rupees claimed by the petitioners and on 29th January, 2002 agreed to pay the same in 9 equal instalments of Rs. 7,85,68,350.44 ps. each commencing from 7th April, 2002 payable on 7th day of each subsequent month and last














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top