JUDGMENT :

(Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Respondents herein for the wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 07.12.2017 in A.No.694 of 2017.)

1. The petitioner alleges contempt of an order of this Court in A.No.694 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 filed in terms of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (A and C Act) and prays that the respondents be visited with punishment for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the aforesaid order.

2. The facts in question and brief submissions of Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant in Section 9 application are as follows:

The petitioner supplies heavy earth equipment on contract basis as well as services incidental thereto. It entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondents on 11.12.2015 to provide financial assistance of an amount of Rs.2.50 crores to enable them to meet their obligation towards provision of a Performance Bank Guarantee from the State Bank of India, Calcutta for the exclusive right to operate cargo at berths 2 and 8 of the Haldia Dock Complex. The amount was to be returned by the respondents within 30 days, but in any event not later than 89 days from the date of MOU.

3. A promissory note was executed by the 2nd respondent on the same date along with a Board Resolution of R1 company authorising the Director to take necessary action in terms of the MOU. A cheque dated 10.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.3 crores was also handed over as security.

4. The respondents are alleged to have defaulted in the repayments. Upon their assurance that the amounts would be positively repaid, the cheques originally given were not presented and six fresh cheques were furnished by the respondents, deposited, but dishonoured. Action has been initiated separately under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. While that is so A.No.694/2017 was filed before this Court under Section 9 of the A and C Act seeking a direction to the respondents to furnish security. The matter was listed on 02.05.2017 on which date a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to furnish security to the extent of claim made in the application within a period of six weeks, failing which there would be an order of attachment as prayed for.

6. The respondents moved Application No.7662/2017 seeking to set aside order passed on 02.05.2017. Both applications came to be heard on 07.12.2017 when the direction to furnish security ordered on 02.05.2017 was reiterated and the respondents directed to comply with the direction within a period of six weeks from that date i.e. 07.12.2017. This was evidently for the reason that the earlier direction issued on 02.05.2017 had itself not been complied with by the respondents. The aforesaid order is extracted in full below:

Application No.694 of 2017 is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to furnish security to the tune of Rs.3.47 crores.

2. Heard Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. A.No.694 of 2017 was first listed on 07.02.2017 when notice was issued to the respondent. Thereafter, it appears that counsel entered appearance for the respondent and sought time on 13.03.2017 for filing counter. The matter was listed thereafter on 04.04.2017 and then before the vacation Court on 02.05.2017, when this court was pleased to direct the respondent to furnish security as prayed for. According to Mr.Ravikumar, his name was not printed in the printed cause list on 02.05.2017, though the online cause list appears to have contained the same. This submission is borne out by a noting in order dated 02.05.2017, specifically directing the registry to print the name of the respondent counsel in the cause list. The order also directs attachment of the property described in the judges summons if security as directed is not furnished. A.No.7662 of 2017 has thus been filed