A contemnor is not in a position of an accused and contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance of undertaking dated 08th April, 2015 given by the respondents wherein they undertook to pay Rs. 7 crores i.e. Rs. 2 crores on 30th April, 2015, Rs. 2.5 crores each on 31st May, 2015 and 30th June, 2015.

FACTS

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 18th January, 2014 the finance facility limit of respondent No. 3-company was enhanced to Rs. 20 crores on execution and signing of requisite loan documents by the respondents and one Ms. Neelam Kohli.

3. While immovable property i.e. property No. 13A, out of Khasra No. 1332/691/442, Gali No. 3, Bhola Nath Nagar known as Kanti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shahdara property') was mortgaged by one Ms. Neelam Kohli on 28th January, 2015, immovable built up property i.e. Plot No. 90, Block-I, Pocket-VI, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085 measuring 107.60 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as 'Rohini property') was mortgaged by respondent No. 2 on 18th March, 2014 for consideration of grant of aforesaid loan facility of Rs. 20 crores.

4. On 24th July, 2014, the loan of the respondents was categorized as a Non Performing Asset due to defaults in repayment.

5. On 18th August, 2014, notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the respondents by petitioner-Bank for recovery of Rs. 28,82,25,942.24 plus interest.

6. On 05th December, 2014, symbolic possession of Rohini and Shahdara properties under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were taken over by the respondent-Bank.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents filed S.A. No. 367/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT-III’), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRTIII declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties.

8. Appeal being Inward No. 684/2014 was filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 19th December, 2014 passed by DRT-III.

9. Since respondents failed to deposit Rs. 7 crores being twenty five per cent of the notice amount under Section 13(2) and further as respondents requested to withdraw the said appeal, Inward No. 684/2014 was dismissed as withdrawn on 31st March, 2015.

10. On 01st April, 2015, the respondents got an ex-parte stay order from DRT-III, New Delhi in S.A. No. 367/2014 whereby the petitioner was restrained from taking over physical possession of the properties upon deposit of Rs. 5 crores by the respondents within thirty days. The order stipulated that Rs. 2 crores would be deposited by 03rd April, 2015.

11. On 03rd April, 2015, respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 3 gave a letter to SHO, Police Station Katju Marg, Rohini, Delhi showing his intention to deposit aforesaid amount of Rs. 2 crores by way of four cheques.

12. On 05th and 06th April, 2015, the Receiver was unable to take possession of Rohini property due to resistance by the respondents.

13. Thereafter, the respondents challenged the order dated 01st April, 2015 before this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 3406/2015 stating that the petitioner and DRT were acting unfairly and unjustly in not accepting their cheques totalling to Rs. 2 crores.

14. During the course of hearing of the writ petition on 08th April, 2015, the counsel for the respondents admitted the liability of the respondents to pay the amount demanded by the petitioner-Bank, but sought time to settle the matter. The respondents offered, by way of a statement under oath, to deposit Rs. 7 crores, i.e. twenty five per cent of the notice amount in three instalments on or before 30th June, 2015. The petitioner-Bank gave its assent to the disposal of the writ petition on the terms offered. Thereafter the Division Bench ordered that the possession of the properties of the respondents shall not be disturbe