IMPORTANT POINT
Intent is essential for establishing contempt; mere disobedience is insufficient without a wilful disregard for court orders.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Hari Shankar, J.)

CCP(O) 41/2023 in OMP (EFA) (Comm) 1/2022

CCP(O) 42/2023 in OMP (EFA) (Comm) 2/2022

1. The petitioner, by this petition, alleges contumacious and wilful disobedience, by the respondents, of the following order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 3 June 2022 in OMP (EFA) (COMM) 1/2022,["the OMP" hereinafter]:

“1. I have heard Mr. Darpan Wadhwa and Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the parties for some time.

2. Mr. Mehta state, the award of which execution is sought, is against the judgment debtor/respondent company. The liability cannot be fastened upon the Directors of the judgment debtor/respondent company.

3. He on instructions from Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Director of JD/respondent Company state, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the judgment debtor/respondent company and also its Directors, he shall ensure the property being House No.83, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi is not alienated nor any third party rights are created, in respect to that property. The statement is taken on record.

4. It is made clear, the submission made by Mr. Mehta that the liability of the JD/respondent cannot be fastened on the Directors as noted above, shall be considered on the next date of hearing.

5. At this stage Mr. Wadhwa has drawn my attention to an affidavit filed on behalf of the judgment debtor company, more specifically pages 3 and 5 which depicts the immovable properties and FDRs in the name of the company, though under the charge of Banks to contend that the judgment debtor company be restrained from alienating and/or creating third party rights with regard to those immovable properties and the FDRs, subject to prior right of the financial institutions. Mr. Mehta is agreeable to the said submission of Mr. Wadhwa.

6. It is made clear that the immovable properties depicted under the heading “Immovable Properties” at pages 3 and 4 and also the FDR’s under the heading “other securities-fixed deposit attached” at page 5 shall not be sold/alienated nor any third party rights be created, of course, subject to the prior right of any financial institution, till the next date of hearing.

7. Reply to the objections under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto be filed within two weeks thereafter.

8. List on September 07, 2022.”

2. I have heard Mr. Darpan Wadhwa and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner and the respondents/alleged contemnors, at length.

3. Mr. Wadhwa contends that, by selling the property situated at Khasra 646, Siraspur,["the Siraspur property" hereinafter], on 28 November 2022, without disclosure either to the petitioner of this Court, the respondents, chiefly Respondent 2, have committed contumacious and wilful contempt of this Court. The Siraspur property, it is pointed out, is one of the immovable properties, the alienation of which was restrained by the order dated 3 June 2022. Mr. Wadhwa contends that the records of Respondent 1 Sharp Corp Ltd.["Sharp" hereinafter], of which Respondents to ace the Managing Director, did not disclose any pre-existing charge or collateral, in respect of the Siraspur property, with any financial institution. The relevant documents, evidencing this position, have been filed with the contempt petition. Mr. Wadhwa has also taken me through affidavit dated 25 May 2022, filed by Sharp in the proceedings in the OMP, which do indicate that the Siraspur property is one of the immovable properties enlisted therein. For having thus contumaciously breached the interlocutory injunction granted by this Court on 3 June 2022, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt action against the respondents.

4. Mr. Wadhwa also invites attention, in this context, to affidavit dated 23 February 2024, filed by the State Bank of India,["the SBI" hereinafter], paras 2 and 4 of which read thus:

“2. THAT, To answer the query of this Hon’ble Court, the subject property Khasra No 646