Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1404
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SUJANA, J.
Mohammed Bin Ahmed Bavazeer - Appellant
Vs.
The Branch Manager - Respondent
Contempt Case No. 2839 of 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Vivekan
For the Respondent: V U S S R Anjaneyulu
Judicial orders must be complied with despite procedural claims or ownership ambiguities; non-compliance constitutes contempt of court.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 - Binding orders - The petitioners sought contempt proceedings against the bank for failing to comply with a court order from Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024 to unfreeze a specified amount. The bank claimed lack of compliance due to procedural delays and account ownership issues (Paras 1, 3, 5, 6).
(B) Judicial Authority - The court emphasized the necessity for compliance with judicial orders, ruling that procedural delays do not justify non-compliance and that ambiguous ownership or procedural claims do not absolve the respondent from responsibility (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed following the bank's failure to unfreeze an account as directed by the court in previous proceedings. The bank cited procedural delays and account ownership issues while the petitioners argued that non-compliance constituted contempt of court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the bank had disobeyed a clear and binding order and allowed the respondent an opportunity to comply before threatening further action (Paras 6, 7).
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners had locus standi in the contempt proceedings and the legitimacy of the bank's claims regarding account ownership and procedural delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that judicial orders must be complied with regardless of procedural claims or ambiguity, emphasizing that failure to do so constitutes contempt (Paras 7).
Result: Contempt case closed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and account status. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. allegations of contempt and violation of court orders. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of compliance and justifications. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. closure of the contempt case without costs. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
1. This contempt case is filed seeking the Court to punish the respondent under Section 10 to 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully and wontedly disobeying the binding orders passed in Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024.
2. Heard Sri R. Vivekan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri V.S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank account of the petitioner was frozen by a notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS Act, 2023. When the petitioners challenged the notice by filing Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024, this Court quashed the order and directed the Investigating Officer to freeze the account only to the extent of the claim amount, i.e., Rs.6,37,600/-. However, the respondent bank failed to comply with this direction, citing procedural delays, which led the petitioners to file another petition, Crl.P.No.11356 of 2024. In this matter, the Court reiterated its directions and ordered the respondent bank to follow its previous instructions scrupulously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that despite clear judicial directions, the respondent bank has neither unfrozen the account of the petitioners nor facilitated the settlement of the claim of the victim or transferred the remaining funds as directed. Multiple attempts by the petitioners and their counsel to seek compliance have resulted in evasive responses, with the respondent shifting responsibility to higher authorities and delaying action under the guise of legal review. This failure to honor the orders of the Court violates Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and constitutes contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, the petitioners seek the intervention of this Court to ensure compliance with its binding orders in Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.11356 of 2024. He further contended that this disobedience undermines Judicial Authority and has caused grave injustice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the contempt petition is not maintainable as the petitioners lack locus standi. The account in question, Account No.42796571215, belongs to Provex Man Ventures, represented by Mr. Syed Mahmood, who is not a petitioner in this case. The respondent further contended that the account contained no funds as of 23.08.2024, the date on which Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024 was disposed of, and as of 23.01.2025, the date when the notice was received in the present contempt petition. Additionally, all seven accounts associated with the petitioners (including Account Nos. 42846652453, 42796283397, 42794084881, 42846649406, 42846785631, 42846729314) were flagged as "mule accounts" due to irregular transactions totaling Rs.175 crores, leading to their freezing in May 2024 following nationwide directives. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the contempt case
6. Upon considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that there was a clear and binding direction issued in Crl.P.No.9697 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, wherein the Investigating Officer was specifically directed to freeze only an amount of Rs.6,37,600/- in relation to the subject matter of Crime No.13 of 2024, and to defreeze the remaining accounts. It is not in dispute that the freezing of accounts originated from a notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pursuant to Crime No.13 of 2024. Despite the reiteration of these directions in Crl.P.No.11356 of 2024, the respondent bank has faile
