Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 654
High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Maharaj Sinha, JJ.
KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
SRIJIT DUTTA GUPTA - Respondent
F. M. A. 245 Of 2001
Decided On : 08/28/2007
ASISH KUMAR GUPTA, HIRAK MITRA, P.P.BANERJI, SAPTANGSU BASU
The court cannot extend the span of the main order in contempt proceedings and cannot grant substantive relief beyond the scope of the main order.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - RENEWAL OF FIXED DEPOSITS - CUMULATIVE INTEREST - SCOPE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION - COURT CANNOT EXTEND SPAN OF MAIN ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as trustee of a public and religious trust, filed an application alleging that the State Bank of India had not complied with earlier court orders regarding the renewal of fixed deposits and payment of interest. The petitioner sought directions to the bank to renew the deposits on a cumulative basis and pay quarterly interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contempt jurisdiction could not be used to extend the scope of the main order, which had not specifically directed the bank to add reinvested interest to the principal amount or to renew the deposits on a cumulative basis from a period prior to the disposal of the mandamus appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can extend the scope of the main order in contempt proceedings. 2. Whether the bank had violated the earlier court orders regarding the renewal of fixed deposits and payment of interest.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts, not to grant substantive relief beyond the scope of the main order. 2. The court cannot enter into questions that have not been dealt with in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, holding that it was not maintainable as there was no scope for deciding the alleged irregularities committed by the bank in the contempt proceedings.
" (a) Leave be given to the petitioner to make this application. (b) An order be passed directing the State Bank of India, Rash Behari Avenue branch to renew 20 fixed deposit receipts particular thereof are set out in table 'c' annexed hereto cumulatively for the periods form 1991 till 2002 as it had done for the periods from 2002 to 2005 as shown in the table 'c' annexed hereto. (c) Order be passed against State Bank of India, Grey Street Extension branch regarding 12 fixed deposit receipts details whereof are set out in table 'g' annexed hereto directing the said branch to renew all the fixed deposit receipts on a cumulative basis till March 18, 2005 as shown in the table marked 'g'. (d) Order to be passed directing the Branch Manager of Grey Street Extension branch of State Bank of India to renew the said fixed deposits on quarterly payable interest basis in terms of the order dated 18th March, 2005 passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court in CPAN No. 371 of 2004. (e) Such further order or orders as to this Honb'le Court may deem fit and proper. (f) Costs. (h) Any other writ or writs, order or orders and direction or directions, as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper. "
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of this application may be precised thus:
(1) By a declaration of trust, dated June 17, 1950, executed and registered on June 21, 1950 by one Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi, since deceased, a public and religious trust known as "debi Kamal Trust Estate" was created. The said Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi was the" sole trustee from its inception until her death in the year 1970.
(2) After the death of the said Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi, her two sons, viz. Kesab Narayan (the petitioner) and Kamal Narayan (since deceased) became the trustees and in terms of the deed of trust, Keshab Narayan became the managing trustee for the first five years since 1970.
(3) In the year 1975, Kamal Narayan relinquished the office of trustee by a registered document and since then, the petitioner has been functioning as the sole and managing trustee of the estate.
(4) There was a search and seizure by the income-tax department as a result of which receipts of the various fixed deposits were seized by the Income tax Authorities. The petitioner, as a trustee of the Trust Estate, claimed that all these fixed deposits belonged to the trust. The Income Tax authorities, however, had investigated the matter and ultimately, was satisfied that those were not part of any undisclosed income of the trust; and the proceedings ended in favour of the Trust holding that those were part of the disclosed the income of the trust.
(5) In spite of such a situation, the seized documents were not returned, as a result, several writ applications were filed on behalf of the trust. Ultimately, by an order passed by this Court, the Income Tax Authority was directed to consider the question of release of those seized documents in accordance with law. Pursuant to such order dated February 27, 2003 passed in FMA no. 245 of 2001 arising out of CR No. 10194 (W) of 1981, the Income Tax department released all those documents.
(6) Admittedly, those documents were seized about 30 years ago and during the whole period, no one had lodged any claim in respect of any of those fixed deposits. At the same time, interests were being released in favour of the trust. The Income Tax Authority, as mentioned above, found that those fixed deposits were made out of the disclosed income of the trust and that those were shown in the return of the Trust and reflected in its accounts all through.
(7) In the past, on the allegation that the banks refused to release the interest accruing from those accounts in favour of the trust, three different applications for contempt were filed and those were disposed of by an order dated March 18, 2005 by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms: "in the circumstances, we dire
