Page 1

1 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.338 OF 2014

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10221 OF 2014

Ghanshyam Sarda     ……Petitioner

Versus

Sashikant Jha, Director,                           ..…. Respondents M/s JK Jute Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.

with Contempt Petition (C) Nos.24-25/2015 in

Civil Appeal Nos.10224-10225/2014 with

Contempt Petition (C) No.375/2014 in Civil Appeal No.10223/2014

with Contempt Petition (C) No.307/2015 in

Civil Appeal No.10221/2014

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Contempt Petition (Civil)  Nos.338 of 2014 and 375 of 2014 at the

instance of Ghanshyam Sarda, appellant in Civil Appeal No.10221 of 2014

Page 2

2 and  J.K.  Jute  Mills  Mazdoor  Ekta  Union,  appellant  in  Civil  Appeal

No.10223 of 2014 (‘applicants’,  for short)  seek to highlight disobedience

and violation of  the Order  dated  08.05.2014 (“Order  of  08.05.2014”,  for

short)  passed  by  this  Court  in  said  Civil  Appeals  and  other  connected

matters.  The text of the Order of 08.05.2014 was to the following effect:-

“Since  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  take  up the  matter  today, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties seek leave to mention before the Vacation Bench for seeking urgent hearing of the matter.

Permission is granted.

It would be open to the parties to mention before the Vacation Bench for urgent hearing of the matter.

However, it is directed that till further orders, capital assets of the  Company  shall  not  be  disposed  of  without  taking permission of this Court.”

2.  The aforesaid Civil Appeals had challenged the judgment and order

dated 06.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in FAO No.10 of

2013, Writ Petition No.4303 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6286 of  2013 and

were disposed of by this Court vide its Judgment dated 13.11.20141.  The

facts leading to the filing of those appeals and connected matters are dealt

with  in  said  Judgment  dated  13.11.2014.   It  is  alleged  in  the  present

contempt petitions that in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014, which was

1 (2015) 1 SCC 298

Page 3

3 passed during the pendency of the aforesaid Appeals, the assets owned by

the Company, namely, J.K. Jute Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to

as the Company) at Saifganj, Katihar, Bihar spread across 1.6 acres of land

(“Katihar  property”,  for  short)  were  sold  vide  Conveyance  Deed  dated

02.07.2014 and consequently the persons arrayed as contemnors interfered

with  due  administration  of  justice.   It  is  prayed  that  the  contemnors  be

punished for disobeying the Order of 08.05.2014 and at the same time the

Conveyance Deed dated 02.07.2014 alienating Katihar property be declared

null and void.

3. The Company had filed Reference No.149 of 1994 before the Board

for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“the BIFR” for short) under the

provisions  of  Sick  Industrial  Companies  (Special  Provisions)  Act,  1985

(“Act”  for  short),  pursuant  to  which,  various  steps  for  revival  of  the

Company were being considered.  By order dated 17.12.2008 the BIFR had

directed  “…The  Company  would  not  encumber/alienate/lease/sale  any

property without specific prior approval of the Board.”  In the proceedings

dated 26.08.2009, the BIFR had constituted Assets Sale Committee (“ASC”

for  short)  in  respect  of  properties  of  the  Company  including  Katihar

property.  The proceedings of ASC dated 08.11.2012 of which Shri  R.N.

Page 4

4 Lahoti,  CEO of  the  Company was also  a  member  show that  the sale  of

Katihar property was engaging the attention of ASC.   

4.  The  proceedings  of  the  BIFR  dated  07.02.2013  show  that  in

compliance  of  the  earlier  directions,  the  Operating  Agency  was  in  the

process of finalizing a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (“DRS” for short) and in

furtherance of the directions of sale of certain assets, notices were already

sent to the Company, secured creditors and State of Bihar to nominate their

representatives in ASC.  The proceedings further show that the Operating

Agency  by  letter  dated  29.01.2013  had  requested  the  BIFR  to  grant

permission to proceed further for sale of assets of the Company situated in

Bihar.  The next proceedings of the BIFR dated 18.02.2013 indicate that the

Operating  Agency  had  got  the  assets  valued  and  had  sent  notices  to  all

parties to nominate their representatives in the ASC.    

5. While the matter stood thus, Auditors’ Report dated 15.02.2013 for the

period ending 31.12.2012 stated that the Net Worth of  the Company had

become  positive.  It  was  also  mentioned  in  the  Directors’  Report  dated

19.02.2013 that the Net Worth of the Company had now turned positive.

Around this time, the BIFR vide its Order dated 26.02.2013 had formulated

DRS for the revival of the Company. On 28.02.2013 four advertisements

Page 5

5 were issued in prominent newspapers by the Operating Agency inviting Bids

for  sale  of  properties  of  the  Company  including   Katihar  property.  The

Reserve Price for  Katihar property was Rs.354.99 Lakhs. The advertisement

stated that the Bid documents could be obtained, inter alia, from S.K. Jha of

M/S J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd, 70 Golf Links, New Delhi 110003.

6. When the matter was thus being considered for finalization of DRS

and for sale of assets of the Company, in the proceedings of the BIFR dated

04.04.2013 it was submitted on behalf of the Company that the Net Worth of

the Company having turned positive, BIFR no longer retained jurisdiction

over the Company. The BIFR observed that as per Annual Balance Sheet of

the Company as on 31.03.2012 the Net worth of the Company was Rs.5.71

Crores and the accumulated losses were Rs.36.23 crores and it would like to

satisfy itself about the Balance Sheet as at 31.12.2012. The BIFR passed

following directions:-

“4.13. Having considered the submissions made in the hearing, materials on record, the Bench issued the following directions:

(i) The Company to submit certified copy of its ABS as on 31-12-2012 along with  all  relevant  papers  and documents  in support of its net worth within one week from today with copy to IDBI (OA) and all parties concerned along with documentary evidence;

Page 6

6 (ii) ASC  would  go  ahead  as  per  its  schedule  and confirmation of sale, if any, will take place upon the approval of DRS on 20-5-2013, with the consent of the Bench.

(iii)   The Bench fixed the next date of hearing on 26-4-2013 at 11.30 a.m. for considering the submission of the Company that its net worth has turned positive as on 31-12-2012 and also hear MA No.162/BC of 2012 on the said date.”

7. On 16.04.2013 meeting of ASC was held but Shri. R.N. Lahoti CEO

of the Company did not attend. The meeting took note of the letter dated

16.04.20013 from the Company signed by Shri S.K. Jha, Director that their

representative would not take part in the ASC meeting as the Net worth of

the Company having turned positive, it was no more covered under the Act.

The proceedings of the BIFR dated 16.04.2013 disclose that the BIFR had

observed  that  manipulation  of  accounts  had  been  alleged  against  the

Company and the BIFR would examine the same and enquire whether the

Net Worth of the Company had turned positive or not.

8. At  this  stage,  various proceedings  including those at  Gauhati  were

instituted, as detailed in the Judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014.  In

Title Suit No.166 of 2013, Civil Court at Kamroop, Gauhati by an interim

order dated 13.05.2013 restrained the defendants therein including the BIFR

from proceeding with Reference No.149 of 1994. This Order and subsequent

Page 7

7 proceedings  taken up in  Gauhati  High Court  led to  the filing of  Special

Leave Petitions giving rise to aforementioned Civil  Appeal Nos.10221 of

2014 and 10223 of 2014 and other connected matters in which this Court

passed the Order of 08.05.2014.

9. During the  pendency of  the  aforesaid  Civil  Appeals  in  this  Court,

aforementioned Contempt Petition Nos.338 of 2014 and 375 of 2014 were

filed alleging alienation of  Katihar property vide Conveyance Deed dated

02.07.2014 in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014.  Contempt Petition (C)

No.338 of 2014 was taken as the lead petition and the basic allegations about

the involvement of various contemnors as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 7 to

14 in the contempt petition are to the following effect:-

“4. That the Contemnor Nos.1 to 3 in conspiracy and collusion with  other  Contemnors,  the  particulars  of  which  are  given hereinafter  have  after  08.05.2014  sold  away  by  executing  a Registered Conveyance Deed dated 02.07.2014 capital assets of the Contemnor No.1 Company being the land, factory buildings etc. to one M/S. Thapar Herbs & Spices Pvt. Ltd. (Contemnor No.14  herein)  through  its  Director  Mr.   Mrityunjay  Kumar Singh, Contemnor No.17 herein (who is also the stooge and the employee of the Contemnor Nos.2 and 3); hence the present Petition.

7.  The Contemnor Nos.4 to 8, Mr. Sashi Kant Jha, Mr. Sudhir Kumar  Singh,  Mr.  Rakesh  Kumar  Singhania  and  Mr. Sobhanand  Jha  alias  Mr.  Ravishankar  Prabhakar  and  Mr. Damodar Prasad Bhatter are the stooges and employees of Mr. Govind Sarda and Mr. Aditya Sarda and were/are the Directors and persons who with the Contemnor Nos.2 and 3 are in day to

Page 8

8 day management and control of the Contemnor No.1 Company being  Directors  and  key  employees  of  the  Contemnor  No.1 Company during the relevant period when the acts of contempt have been perpetrated and these Contemnor Nos.4 to 8 were/are actively  involved  in  consciously  defying  the  orders  dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court.

8.   The  Contemnor  No.9,  Mr.  Prakash  Kumar,  IAS  is  the District Magistrate and Collector of Katihar, Bihar who despite the orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court took no  steps  in  order  to  restrain  the  sale  and  registration  of  the Katihar  capital  assets  of  the Contemnor  No.1 Company. The Contemnor No.10 (whose name could not be ascertained ) is the Dy.  Collector,   District  Legal  Branch,  Katihar  who  on 31.05.2014 sent the orders dated 21.03.2014 of the Collector, Katihar to the Distirict Sub-Registrar, Katihar for information and necessary action. The Contemnor No.11, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gwalia  is  the  District  Sub-Registrar  (Sub-Registry  Office), Katihar, Bihar who has registered the Conveyance Deed of the Katihar  capital  asset  of  the  Contemnor  No.1  company  on 02.07.2014 despite being in full and complete knowledge of the orders  dated  08.05.2014  passed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court.  The Contemnor  No.12,  Mr. Rajender  Singh is  the  Circle  Officer, Katihar who is taking steps to mutate the Katihar capital assets of  the  Contemnor  No.1  Company  in  favour  of  Contemnor No.14  which  is  transferred   by  the  illegal  registered Conveyance Deed dated 02.07.2014. The Contemnor No.13 is Mr.  Pankaj  Kumar,  IAS  who  was  occupying  the  post  of Divisional Commissioner, Purnia Division at the relevant point of time and to whom letter was sent on 10.06.2014 (and duly served on 11.06.2014) informing of the orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court and did not take any steps or issue any directions to the Contemnor Nos.9 to 12 to restrain the sale and registration of the Katihar capital assets of the Contemnor No.1 Company.  

9.   The counsel for the Petitioner by his letter dated 10.06.2014 was  sent  to  Contemnor  No.11  with  a  copy  endorsed  to Contemnor Nos.9,12,13 and to Registrar of Assurance, Katihar and to the Chief Minister and a letter dated 13.06.2014 was sent

Page 9

9 by the counsel for the petitioner to Contemnor Nos.9,11,12 and to  the  Finance  Minister,  Chief  Secretary  and  Asstt.  I.G.  of Registration and all of them given full and complete knowledge of the orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court but all of them and in particular Contemnor Nos.9, 11, 12 and 13 showed scant regard to the same and did not take any steps to restrain  the  sale  and  transfer  and  registration  of  the  Katihar capital  asset  of  the  Contemnor  No.1  Company.  Rather,  the Contemnor  Nos.9  to  13  showed  scant  regards  to  the  orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court and facilitated the sale, transfer and registration of the Katihar capital asset of the Contemnor No.1 Company in conspiracy and collusion with Contemnor  Nos.2  to  8  and  Contemnor  Nos.14  to  18  have become parties to the present Contempt Petition.

10.   The Contemnor No.14 is M/s. Thapar Herbs and Spices Pvt.  Ltd.,  which is  a  company owned and controlled  by the Contemnor No.2 and which has purchased the Katihar capital asset of the Contemnor No.1 Company in violation of the order dated  08.05.2014  passed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court.  Contemnor No.15 is Mr. Krishan Kumar, Contemnor No.16 is Mr. Rakesh Kabra  and Contemnor  No.17 is  Mr. Mritunjay  Kumar Singh who are also the Directors of the Contemnor No.14 Company and  are  the  employees/stooges  of  Mr.  Govind  Kumar  Sarda (Contemnor No.2) who have acted in collusion and conspiracy with the Contemnor Nos.1 to 13 consciously and with full and complete  knowledge  of  the  facts  defied/violated  the  orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court.

11. That  in  willful  disobedience  to  the  orders  dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the Contemnor Nos.1 to 8 in collusion and conspiracy with the Contemnor Nos.9 to 13 and in willful disobedience of the orders dated 08.05.2014 sold  away the  Katihar  capital  assets  of  the  Contemnor  No.1 Company  to  the  Contemnor  No.14  Company  (which  is managed and controlled by Contemnor Nos.2 and 3) for a paltry sum of Rs.3.55 crores as  against  the Circle  rate  of  Rs.15.37 crores whereas the market value is above Rs.20 crores.  It is submitted that:-

Page 10

10 (i) Contemnor No.14 through one of its Directors i.e. Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, Contemnor No.17 (who is an employee of  the Contemnor No.2 and works at  70, Golf Links, New Delhi office of the Contemnor Nos.1 to 3) filed application before the Contemnor No.11 (District Sub-Registrar, Katihar) for transfer of the Katihar capital asset of the Contemnor No.1 Company.  This application was dismissed vide orders dated 28.10.2013.

(ii) On  an  appeal  filed  by  the  Contemnor  No.14 Company  through  Contemnor  No.17  before  the Contemnor  No.9  (District  Magistrate  &  Collector, Katihar)  being Registration  Appeal  Case  No.235/13-14 the Collector,  Katihar, inter-alia,  passed   the following orders on 21.03.2014 (English translation):-

“From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the land under reference is Reyati Land (belonged to Juggi Lal Kamlapati Company, Katihar).  Therein the  Government  has  no  vested  interest. Accordingly, there  appears  to  be  no purpose  for stay  of  its  registration.   Therefore  the  District Sub-Registrar,  Katihar  is  free  for  conducting  the proceedings  under  the  Registration  Act  and  the Rules framed under it.  With this order the present case hereby disposed off.” ……………………………………………………..

(iii) As  stated  above,  this  Hon’ble  Court  by  orders dated 08.05.2014 directed that till further orders, capital assets of the company shall not be disposed of without taking permission of this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) On  31.05.2014,  the  Contemnor  No.10,  Deputy Collector,  District  Legal  Branch,  Katihar  made  the following  endorsement  (English  translation)  on  the orders dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Contemnor No.9 to the Contemnor No.11:-

“Memo 1346/Law, dated 31.05.2014

Page 11

11 Copy  to  District  Sub-Registrar,  Katihar  for information and necessary action.”

(v) On  coming  to  know  of  the  fact  that  the Contemnors are in the process of illegally selling away the  Katihar  capital  asset  of  the  Contemnor  No.1 Company to the Contemnor No.14 Company (being the company  controlled  and  managed  by  the  Contemnor Nos.2 and 3), the petitioner through its counsel wrote a letter  dated  10.06.2014  to  the  District  Magistrate  & Collector and brought to his notice the orders passed by the  Allahabad  High  Court  and  this  Hon’ble  Court regarding restraint order on the sale of land and property of the Contemnor No.1 Company…………………….  

(vi) The counsel for the petitioner also wrote another letter  dated  10.06.2014  to  the  Contemnor  No.10,  with copy endorsed to the Contemnor No.9, 12, 13 and to the Registrar  of  Assurance,  Dist.  Katihar  and  the  Chief Minister and specifically pointed out the restraint orders passed by the Allahabad High Court and by this Hon’ble Court and enclosed the copy of the said orders alongwith the letter dated 10.06.2014.  …………………………

(vii) Thereafter, the counsel for the Petitioner wrote a letter dated 13.06.2014 to Contemnor Nos.9, 11, 12 and to the Finance Minister, Chief Secretary and Asstt. I.G. of Registration  specifically  bringing  to  their  notice  the orders dated 8.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court and requested  that  the  Conveyance  Deed  in  respect  of  the Katihar capital asset be not registered.  ………………..

(viii) Despite  the  letters  dated  10.06.2014  and 13.06.2014 of the counsel for the Petitioner bringing to the notice of the Contemnor Nos.9 to 13 of the orders dated  08.05.2014  passed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court,  the Contemnor  Nos.1  to  17  in  willful  disobedience proceeded ahead with the process of the registering the Conveyance Deed in respect of Katihar capital asset of the  Contemnor  No.1  Company  and  by  a  Registered

Page 12

12 Conveyance  Deed  dated  02.07.2014  conveyed  the Katihar capital asset of the Contemnor No.1 Company to the  Contemnor  No.14  Company  (which  is  owned  and controlled by Contemnor Nos.2 and 3) for a paltry sum of Rs.3.55  crores  as  against  the  Circle  rate  of  Rs.15.37 crores whereas the market value is above Rs.20 crores. ……………………………………………………………

12. Another  instance  of  fraud  and  back-dating  of  the Conveyance Deed is evident from the fact that the Conveyance Deed is signed by one Mr. Sobhanand Jha (Contemnor No.7) as Director of Contemnor No.1 Company but as on the date of the signing and/or execution of the Conveyance Deed, he had on 17.02.2014  resigned  as  a  Director  of  the  Contemnor  No.1 Company.  The said Mr. Sobhanand Jha long back changed his name to Mr. Ravishankar Prabhakar and got his name changed in  the  records  with  the  Registrar  of  Companies  but  he  still signed the Conveyance Deed on behalf of the Contemnor No.1 Company as a Director with his name written as Mr. Sobhanand Jha.  ……………………………………………………………

13. That  the  Contemnor  Nos.1  to  17  have  thus  willfully, consciously  and  contumaciously  and  with  full  and  complete knowledge violated and disobeyed the orders dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SLP(Civil) No.5249 of 2014 and as  such each one of  Contemnors  have made themselves jointly and severally liable to be punished for the contempt of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.

14. That the subject matter of the Katihar capital asset is part of the scheme before the BIFR and in respect of the permissions granted for sale of the Katihar capital assets and other assets of the  Contemnor  No.1  Company  on  an  appeal  being  Special Appeal No.539 of 2013 filed before the Allahabad High Court, the  Allahabad  High  Court  by  orders  dated  15.04.2013  and 16.04.2013 passed directing that the bid already received by the Asset Sale Committee (ASC) will not be opened till the next date…………………………………………………………….

Page 13

13

10.     By its Judgment dated 13.11.2014, this Court allowed the aforesaid

appeals and set aside the judgment of Gauhati High Court.  It was observed:-

“…When all the financial affairs of such company were directly under  the  supervisory  control  of  BIFR,  the  power  to  decide whether it has since then lost the jurisdiction or not, is also in the exclusive domain of  BIFR. BIFR alone is empowered to determine whether net worth has become positive as a result of which it would cease to have such jurisdiction. Any inquiry into such  issue  regarding  net  worth  by  anyone  outside  the  Act including civil court, would be against the express intent of the Act and would lead to incongruous and undesired results.”

This Court relegated the matter to the BIFR to determine whether the

Net Worth of the Company had turned positive. Since the alienation dated

02.07.2014 was effected without the express leave of the BIFR, that part of

the matter was also left  for BIFR to consider, as  would be evident from

paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment:-

“37.  In the circumstances, we allow the present appeals and set aside the order dated 06-01-2014 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Ghanshyam Sarda v. Shiv Shankar Trading Co. It is held that Title Suit No.166 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Civil  Court  at Kamroop, Gauhati is  not  maintainable insofar as it seeks declaration that the Company was no longer a sick  company within the  meaning of  the Act  and that  BIFR ceased to have jurisdiction over the Company and that all the proceedings in BIFR after filing of the positive balance sheet were without jurisdiction. Consequently the order of injunction passed by the civil court is set aside. Insofar as the said suit pertains to the claim for recovery of money from the Company,

Page 14

14 the  suit  could  lie  and  be  proceeded  with  only  after  express consent of BIFR is received by the plaintiff. We direct that the Company  i.e.  J.K.  Jute  Mills  Co.  Ltd.  having  its  registered office at Kanpur, U.P. continues to be under the jurisdiction of BIFR. We leave it to BIFR to satisfy itself and determine the issues  whether  the  net  worth  of  the  Company  has  turned positive or not. If BIFR is so satisfied, it shall deregister the Company and upon such declaration the Company will be out of the supervisory jurisdiction of BIFR under the Act. Needless to say that if  BIFR is not satisfied that the net worth of the Company has turned positive, it shall go ahead and consider the scheme  for  revival  of  the  Company.  We  direct  BIFR  to complete  this  exercise  within  two  months  from  the  date  of receipt of this order. We have refrained from dealing with the matter concerning the merits or demerits of the claim that the net worth has turned positive nor have we dealt with the report made by State Bank of India in its special investigative audit. We  leave  these  issues  to  be  considered  by  BIFR  at  an appropriate stage. We have also not dealt with the submissions alleging  bias  as  the  matters  in  that  behalf  are  still  pending consideration before the authorities and we leave these issues to be dealt with at an appropriate stage.

38. Since  in  our  view the  Company  continues  to  be  a  sick company and it was not competent for anyone except BIFR to determine whether the net worth of the Company had turned positive, we hold the sale of Katihar property effected by the Company without express leave or permission of BIFR to be questionable. However, since the transferee of that property is not  before this  Court  we relegate  this  matter  for  appropriate assessment by BIFR after issuing due notice to the transferee. We also leave it to BIFR to consider and assess whether there was  any  necessity  or  expediency  to  sell  the  property  in question.  If  in its  opinion such expediency and necessity  are established, BIFR may also consider whether the value that the property has fetched is adequate or not. If the value is adequate it may confirm the sale in favour of the transferee. However, if the value in its  opinion is inadequate,  it  shall  give offer  and adequate time to the transferee to make good the deficit. In any

Page 15

15 case  if  the  sale  is  held  to  be  bad or  if  the  transferee  is  not willing to make good the deficit, the entire consideration for the transaction  be  returned to  the  transferee.  In  such  eventuality whatever the transferee has paid in excess of the consideration money towards stamp duty and registration shall be recovered from the Directors and persons responsible for effecting such sale on behalf of the Company.”

11. Thus,  the  infirmity  in  the  transfer  or  alienation  of  assets  of  the

Company found by this Court was on account of absence of express leave or

permission  of  the  BIFR.  Further,  the  transferee  not  being  party  to  the

proceedings before this Court, the matter was directed to be considered after

giving it hearing and opportunity. The present Contempt Petitions were not

dealt with and notices were directed to be issued by a separate order passed

on 13.11.2014.  

12. Pursuant to such notices, the alleged contemnors filed their responses

as under:-

A. In his reply which was also on behalf of the Company, Shri

Shashikant Jha, Director submitted that Katihar property was sold and

transferred  to   alleged  Contemnor  No.14  on  04.04.2013  for

consideration of Rs.3.55 crores, long before the filing of the matter in

this Court and passing of the Order of 08.05.2014.  It was submitted

that  the  entire  consideration  was  received  by  the  Company  on

Page 16

16 04.04.2013 by cheques and constructive possession was also handed

over to the purchaser on 16.04.2013. The reply further stated:-

“The  deed  was  presented  for  registration  before  the Registrar on 16.04.2014. As per the Revenue Department, the stamp duty payable was higher than affixed and accordingly, the matter was pending adjudication. It is only thereafter, that this  Hon’ble  Court  had  passed  the  interim  Order  dated 08.05.2014 restraining the Company from disposing off capital assets  of  the  Company  without  taking  permission  from the Hon’ble Court. By this time, the property in question had for all  practical  purposes  already  been  transferred.  Only,  the ministerial act of actual registration by the Authority concerned was remaining which also was being pursued by the purchaser, it is submitted that vide board resolution dated 06.02.2013 an authority  had  been  given  by  the  Company  to  the  alleged Contemnor  No.7  herein  to  sign  and  execute  the  sale  deed. Subsequently, the alleged contemnor No.7 had resigned from the directorship of the Company. The alleged Contemnor No.7 was  called  upon  by  the  purchaser  for  getting  the  sale  deed registered.  Therefore,  there  was  no  willful  or  deliberate violation of the interim Order dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court. ”

B. In his reply, alleged Contemnor No.2 Govind Sarda submitted

that he was not a party to the proceedings disposed of by this Court

vide  Judgment  dated  13.11.2014.  It  was  denied  that  the  Company

belonged to or was being managed by him or his son or that  Katihar

property was sold away by him in conspiracy with other contemnors.

Similarly  in  his  reply,  alleged  Contemnor  No.3  Aditya  Sarda

submitted  that  he  was  neither  a  shareholder  nor  a  director  in  the

Page 17

17 Company nor did he have any connection with the management of the

Company.  It  was  denied  that  he  along  with  other  contemnors,  in

conspiracy had sold away  Katihar property.

C. In  his  reply  alleged  Contemnor  No.6  Rakesh  Kr.  Singhania

submitted that Katihar property was transferred well before the Order

of  08.05.2014.  Alleged  Contemnor  No.8,  D.P.  Bhattar  another

Director of the Company submitted on same lines. Alleged Contemnor

No.7 Shobhanand Jha who had executed the Deed on behalf of the

Company,  submitted:-

“That the Respondent herein has not violated the Order dated 8.5.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court.  In fact, he had resigned  as  Director  of  JK  Jute  Mills  Ltd.  On  17.02.2014 because of personal reasons and was subsequently, not in touch with  the  Company.   He  was  not  aware  of  the  Order  dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court.  The Respondent had been authorized by the Board of Directors to execute the sale deed to be entered into between the company and M/s Thapar Herbs  &  Spices  (P)  Ltd.  When  he  was  a  Director  of  the company.  The sale deed was executed on 03.04.2013 under the answering respondents signature and the sale consideration was received  by  the  company  on  04.04.2013  itself.   Symbolic possession of the property was also handed over on 16.04.2013. The  deed  was  presented  for  registration  by  the  buyer  on 16.04.2013 but as the stamp duty as assessed by the revenue authorities was on the higher side, the registration of the deed did not  take place.   The buyer  after  certain correspondences with the revenue authorities  was  able  to  reduce the value of stamp duty  payable  on  such  registration.   As  a  considerable time  of  more  than  one  year  had  elapsed,  the  buyer  had contacted the answering respondent to get a fresh deed executed

Page 18

18 and to get the same registered.  As the answering respondent had been given the authority which was not revoked till then the answering  respondent  on  good  faith  executed  the  fresh  sale deed  which  was  presented  for  registration  and  was  finally registered  on 02.07.2014.   As  the  answering  respondent  had resigned from the Directorship of the company he was unaware of any orders being passed in the meantime and was also not served by a copy of the said order.  In any event  the entire exercise of sale was completed in 2013 itself when the deed was executed, payment received and possession handed over.”

In his supplementary affidavit Shobhanand Jha further submitted:-

“1.  That  on  02.07.2014  at  the  time  of  registration  of  the conveyance deed I had produced the authorization being board resolution of 06.02.2013 given in my favour by the Board of J K Jute Mills Co. Ltd.

2. That  although  the  sale  deed  of  2014  mentions  my designation as Director, it  is a typographical error and which has  been carried forward from the earlier  sale  deed of  April 2013 and nothing more. It was not my intention to show myself as Director of JK Jute Mills Co. Ltd. at the time of registration as  I  had  resigned  from the  Board  of  Directors  in  February, 2014.  The  only  authorization  in  my  favour  was  the  one mentioned in para 1 above. “

D. Alleged Contemnor No.10, Mohammad Istaba Husain, Senior

Deputy Collector, Gaya submitted that soon after receipt of the letter

dated 10.06.2014 sent  by the Counsel  for  the appellant  along with

copy  of  the  order  dated  08.05.2014  passed  by  this  Court,  he  had

ensured that the same was sent to the concerned Sub-Registrar to take

Page 19

19 necessary action as per Rules vide letter dated 26.06.2014.  However,

despite  such  letter  the  Sale  Deed  was  registered  on  02.07.2014

whereafter  charges  were  framed  against  District  Sub-Registrar,

Katihar and Circle Officer, Katihar for disobeying the order passed by

this  Court  on  08.05.2014.   In  his  reply  alleged  Contemnor  No.11,

Sanjay Kumar Gwalia, District Sub-Registrar, Katihar submitted that

he was not a party to the proceedings before this Court, that he was

bound  to  act  under  the  provisions  of  the  Registration  Act  in

connection with registration of documents.  He further submitted that

in  view of  the  prevalent  opinion  from the  office  of  the  Advocate

General, Bihar that the Registering Authorities, if not parties to the

proceedings,  are  bound  to  register   documents  submitted  for

registration,  he  had  sought  opinion  of  the  Government  Pleader  on

30.06.2014.  The  opinion  was  thereafter  given  by  the  Government

Pleader,  Katihar  on  01.07.2014  that  the  documents  could  be

registered,  whereafter  the Sale Deed was registered on 02.07.2014.

Alleged Contemnor No.12, Rajendra Singh, the then Circle Officer in

his  reply  submitted  that  he  had  caused  mutation  to  be  effected  in

pursuance of the registration of document and mutation by itself did

not confer any title upon the transferee.  Alleged Contemnor No.13,

Page 20

20 Pankaj  Kumar,  Secretary  Registration,  Excise  and  Prohibition

Department, Government of Bihar denied having any connection with

the violation of the Order of 08.05.2014.    

E. In  their  common  reply,  alleged  Contemnor  Nos.14  and  17

submitted that the transfer under the document dated 02.07.2014 was

a bonafide purchase for consideration, that the property was already in

the possession of the transferee under a long term lease and that the

transferee had no knowledge about the Order of 08.05.2014  nor was

that  order  ever served upon the transferee.   It  was denied that  the

transferee had any connection with alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3.

The replies filed by alleged Contemnor Nos.15 and 16 were to the

similar effect denying knowledge about the Order of 08.05.2014.   

13. The applicants filed their rejoinder affidavits to the replies filed by all

the alleged contemnors. As regards the reply of alleged Contemnor No.17

Mrityunjay  Kumar  Singh,  it  was  submitted  that  he  was  authorized

respresentative  of  the  Company  as  well  as   Director  in  the  transferee

company.  Reliance was placed on  the authority letter  dated 17.06.2013

issued by the Company authorizing said alleged Contemnor No.17 to collect

certified copies of the orders from the office of the BIFR.  It was submitted

Page 21

21 that he being privy to the proceedings before the BIFR and being aware of

the  Order  of  08.05.2014,  ought  not  to  have  registered  the  document  on

02.07.2014.  In  his  subsequent  affidavit  dated  27.01.2016,   alleged

Contemnor  No.17  submitted  that  he  directly  worked  under  alleged

Contemnor  Nos.2  and  3  and  that  he  used  to  sign  documents  on  their

instructions.  He submitted as under:

“I  wish  to  further  state  that  I,  under  instructions  from  Mr. Aditya Sarda, had visited Katihar twice.  My first visit was in the month of May, 2014 for 15 days and second time in the last week  of  June  2014.   The  first  time  in  May  2014  I  was accompanied by Mr. Sashi Kant Jha and second time in June 2014  with  Shobhanand  Jha,  both  employees  of  Mr.  Govind Sarda.   In  June  2014,  on  reaching  Katihar  I  and  Mr. Shobhanand Jha met by Shri. Damodar Prasad Bhatter another employee of Mr. Govind Sarda and Mr. Aditya Sarda.  I stayed in Katihar for a week.  During both my visits I was told that I had  to  sign  some  documents;  details  of  which  were  not disclosed to me.

e. That  on  02.07.2014,  I  and  Mr. Sobhanand  Jha  signed certain  documents  before  the  Registrar’s  office  on  the instructions of Mr. Aditya Sarda.  I did not have any occasion to read the said document nor was I aware of the contents of the said document and the particulars of the property in respect of the sale deed was signed by me.  After putting the signature, photographs were taken.   Thereafter, I  returned to Delhi  and informed Mr. Aditya Sarda that the papers had been signed.”

14. During the pendency of these contempt petitions, IA Nos.9 and 10  of

2016  were  filed  by  the  applicants  inviting  attention  of  the  Court  to

proceedings in Calcutta High Court, namely, Writ Petition No.5670(W) of

Page 22

22 2016 filed by one  Dinesh Sarda.  It was submitted that said Dinesh Sarda

was a Chartered Accountant who used to work for alleged Contemnor Nos.2

and  3.   Relying  on certain  documents  filed  in  said  writ  petition,  it  was

submitted that alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3 were exercising control and

management  over  the  transferee  company  and  that  the  transaction  in

question registered on 02.07.2014 was a device employed by them. It was

further submitted that these documents indicate the involvement of the said

alleged  Contemnor  Nos.2  and  3  and  established  that  they  were  the  key

conspirators  on  whose  instructions  the  transaction  was  entered  into  and

registered on 02.07.2014.    Concerned parties including alleged Contemnor

Nos.2 and 3 filed their responses to I.A. Nos.9 and 10 of 2016 and denied

the allegations.

15. We heard M/s Krishnan Venugopal, Amit S. Chadha and Sanjiv Sen,

learned Senior Advocates in support of these contempt petitions.  We also

heard M/s  Ram Jhethmalani,  Vikas  Singh,  V. Giri,  Nidesh Gupta,  Jayant

Bhushan,  learned  Senior  Advocates  and  Mr.  Braj  K.  Mishra,  learned

Advocate who appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors.  We have gone

through the record and considered the rival submissions.

16. The first question that arises is whether any alienation or transfer was

effected  after  the  Order  of  08.05.2014.The  submission  of  the   alleged

Page 23

23 contemnors  is  that  the  conveyance  deed was executed  on 04.04.2013 on

which date the entire consideration stood paid  by the transferee  and was

credited to the account of  the  Company and as such the title passed in

favour of the transferee well before the Order of 08.05.2014 and  what was

done on 02.07.2014 was a mere ministerial act.  According to the alleged

contemnors, the documents presented for registration in April 2013 were not

accepted for  want of adequate stamp and registration fees.  This infirmity

was removed and the documents  were then presented  for  registration.  In

such circumstances the order of 08.05.2014 was not in any way violated by

them.

17. The  Order  of  08.05.2014  had  directed  “….capital  assets  of  the

company shall not be disposed of without taking permission of this Court”.

The expression “shall  not be disposed” in the context connotes action or

process of sale of assets.  Going by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property

Act,  1882,  transfer  of  any  tangible  immovable  property  of  the  value  of

Rupees hundred and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument.

The expression ‘only’ in the Section is significant. The transfer comes into

effect and becomes valid and effective only by a registered instrument.   It is

true that the document was sought to be registered in April, 2013 but the

registration in question was duly effected only on 02.07.2014.    In the eyes

Page 24

24 of law, it is this document registered on 02.07.2014 which alone effectuates

transfer  of  interest  in  Katihar  property in favour of  the transferee.   The

transfer  was  thus  effected  on  02.07.2014  i.e.  well  after  the  Order  of

08.05.2014.   In  Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.  v  State of Haryana

and another2,  this Court had observed as under:

“19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of  sale,  whether  with  possession  or  without  possession,  is  not  a conveyance.  Section  54  of  the  TP Act  enacts  that  sale  of  immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.”

18. The document dated 04.04.2013 did not by itself create any interest

nor did the title pass upon execution of such document on 04.04.2013 but it

was  only  after  the  registration  on   02.07.2014  that  the  title  in   Katihar

property  passed  from the  Company  in  favour  of  the  transferee.     The

submission of the contemnors however, is that by virtue of Section 47 of the

Registration Act, the document in question would operate from 04.04.2013.

In our view, the principle embodied in Section 47 of the Registration Act is

completely  for  different  purposes.    In  so  far  as  the  issue  of  transfer  is

concerned,  Section  54  of  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act  is  the  governing

principle,  which is  quite  clear. It  is  the date  of  registration of  document 2 2012 1 SCC 656

Page 25

25 which is crucial inasmuch as the transfer is effected and the title passes only

upon  registration.   Viewed  thus,  it  is  clear  that   Katihar  property  was

transferred in the teeth of the Order of 08.05.2014 and ex facie there has

been violation of the Order passed by this Court.  It is crucial to note that on

08.05.2014,  the  company  had  appeared  on  caveat  before  this  Court  and

certainly had express  knowledge about  the Order  of  08.05.2014.   It  was

party to the proceedings and was bound by the order passed by this Court in

every respect.    

19. The submission  on part  of  alleged Contemnor  Nos.1,4,5,6,7  and 8

namely the Company and its directors/servants is that the document  was

executed by alleged Contemnor No.7 Sobhanand Jha in pursuance of the

authority given to him by the Company way back on 06.02.2013.   As on

06.02.2013, the company was definitely a sick company and the Reference

was pending before the BIFR.  Around that time the ASC was constituted

which was considering sale of assets including  Katihar property.  It was

only after the Auditors’ report dated 15.02.2013 that the Company started

projecting that its net worth had become positive on which account it ceased

to  be  governed  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  was  outside  the

jurisdiction of the BIFR.   Though this Court rejected such submission in its

judgment dated 13.11.2014, at this stage we are considering the bonafides

Page 26

26 and tenability  of  the  assertions  made  by the  alleged contemnors.   There

could not have been any occasion for the Company before 19.02.2013, even

accepting the submission that it ceased to be a sick company as alleged, to

enable  the Company to  execute  an authority  on 06.02.2013 in  favour  of

alleged  Contemnor  No.7.    That  authorization  is  wholly  defective  and

unsustainable.  It  is  not  the  case  of  the  alleged contemnors  that  after  the

adoption of the Auditors’ Report and Directors’ Report dated 19.02.2013 a

decision was taken by the Company to sell or dispose of its Katihar property

in pursuance of which due authorization was given to a competent person to

execute the documents on behalf of the Company.  

20. Further, the facts on record disclose that said Sobhanand Jha changed

his name to R.S. Prabhakar on and with effect from 18.03.2013.   However,

the document mentioned his name as Sobhanand Jha which he signed as

Sobhanand Jha on 04.04.2013. He tendered his resignation on 17.02.2014 as

R.S.  Prabhakar.   Despite  such  resignation,  he  thereafter  executed  the

document  on  02.07.2014  in  the  name  of  Sobhanand  Jha  and  signed  as

Sobhanand Jha.  In any event of the matter as on 02.07.2014, the person was

not a Director of the Company. He submitted that the Company had given

him an authority way back on 06.02.2013 pursuant to which the document

was executed on 04.04.2013 on which date the sale for all practical purposes

Page 27

27 stood completed and what remained was only a ministerial act which was

done by him independently of the Company on 02.07.2014.  It  is  on the

basis of this submission that the Company as well as its Directors/servants

namely alleged Contemnor Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 seek to wriggle themselves out

of any liability for violation of Order of 08.05.2014.   If the order was passed

on  08.05.2014  restraining  any  alienation  of  the  capital  assets  of  the

Company, the Directors/servants of the company ought to have taken steps

to inform alleged Contemnor No.7 to refrain from registering the document

on 02.07.2014. Neither such steps were taken nor was the Court informed on

08.05.2014  about the document executed on 04.04.2013, in which event this

Court  could  have  passed  appropriate  Orders  including  restraint  on

registration.  Similarly,  if  Sobhanand  Jha,  alleged  Contemnor  No.7  had

resigned on 17.02.2014, he had no authority to register  the document on

behalf of the Company.  In our view, the entire exercise was a clever device

employed by the Company and its Directors, in that,  first  an authority in

favour  of  a  Director  was  created  who  then  resigned  as  Director  but

continued to register the document on the basis of erstwhile authorization

and  at  the  same  time  the  person  having  resigned  could  claim  lack  of

knowledge of the Order of restraint passed by this Court. Their actions were

deliberate and designed to flout the Order of 08.05.2014.The involvement of

Page 28

28 alleged Contemnor  Nos.1,4,5,6,7  and 8   in  the  transfer  the assets  of  the

Company in the teeth of the Order of 08.05.2014 is thus  apparent and clear.  

21. We now turn to  the involvement  of  those  officials  concerned with

registration,  who went  ahead and registered the document  on 02.07.2014

despite having been put to notice and served with a copy of the Order of

08.05.2014.  Our attention has been invited to the opinion rendered by the

office of the Advocate General, Bihar to the effect that even if there be any

order passed by  a civil court in connection with a private dispute between

the  parties,  the  registering  authorities  are  bound  to  register  a  document

presented for registration.  This opinion was relied upon by the Government

Advocate who then opined that the document in the present case could be

registered.  The request was allegedly made on 30.06.2014 and the opinion

of the Government Advocate was promptly given on 01.07.2014.  There is

no register maintained diarizing the inward and outward letters and prima

facie the entire theory appears to be suspicious and designed to confer  a

favour.   However,  since  these  are  government  servants,  we  grant  them

benefit of doubt and would only caution them.   It is shocking that an order

passed by this  Court,  in the face of  the provisions  of  Article  142 of  the

Constitution,  could  be  ignored  or  disregarded  by  the  officials  who went

ahead and registered the  document.   However, we do not  find  sufficient

Page 29

29 grounds to invoke our Contempt Jurisdiction  to punish them for violation of

the Order of 08.05.2014.

22. We now turn to the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.14, 15 and

16 who are the transferee Company and its Directors/servants. These alleged

contemnors were neither parties to the proceedings pending in this Court in

which Order of 08.05.2014 was passed nor is there any material to indicate

that such order was ever served on them or brought to the notice of these

alleged contemnors.  The role played by alleged Contemnor No.17, however,

stands on a different footing.  The documents on record do show that he used

to represent the Company and was also given authority to collect documents

on behalf of the Company from the office of the BIFR.  Further, on his own

showing, he had gone ahead and registered the document not on the asking

of the transferee.  He had gone along with the Directors of the Company and

on the directions of  alleged Contemnor  No.3.   The knowledge about  the

passing of Order of 08.05.2014 to the Company and its Directors having

been established, there is room for suspecting the involvement of alleged

Contemnor No.17.  But mere suspicion may not be enough and we give him

benefit of doubt. Thus, none of the alleged Contemnor Nos.14 to 17 have

been proved to be guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2014.

Page 30

30 23. As regards the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, they

were neither  Directors  nor Shareholders of  the Company nor has it  been

shown that they have any stake or interest in the Transferee Company.  It is

undoubtedly true that alleged Contemnor No.17 in his affidavit stated that he

used to work under the directions of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3 and that

the registration of the document on 02.07.2014 was done under the express

directions and alleged Contemnor No.3.  However, such a statement coming

from a co-contemnor, in our view, is not sufficient  to reach a conclusion

about the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.3.  Further, the documents

pertaining to Writ Petition No.5670 (W) of 2016 pending in Calcutta High

Court as well as the affidavit filed by Dinesh Sarda are also not conclusive

enough.   The  criticism that  such  documents  and  the  affidavit  of  Dinesh

Sarda are conveniently brought on record, would also require assessment of

facts.  Thus,  though  there  is  room  to  suspect  the  involvement  of  said

Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, the material on record is not conclusive enough to

hold them guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2015.  We, therefore, close

these proceedings as against them.

24. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or

alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014.  The

law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in  D.D.A.  v.

Page 31

31 Skipper  Construction  Co.  (P)  Ltd.3 that  legal  consequences  of  what  has

been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can

be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they

stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction.  Paragraphs 18

to 21 of the decision in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra)

are quite instructive and are:-

“18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of  orders of injunction issued by civil  courts.  In Clarke v. Chadbur (1985)1 All ER 211 Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed:

“I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience  to  an  order  of  the  court  is  punishable  as  a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may  properly  be  described  as  being  illegal.  If  by  such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected  some charge  in the rights  and liabilities  of  others,  I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties  for  contempt  of  court  for  doing  what  they  did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach  of  the  law.  If  a  meeting  is  held  in  breach  of  an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems  to  me  on principle  that  those  who defy  a  prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.”

19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta  High  Courts  in  Century  Flour  Mills  Ltd. v.  S.

3 (1996) 4 SCC 622

Page 32

32 Suppiah  (AIR 1975 Mad270) and  Sujit Pal v.  Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal 220). In Century Flour Mills Ltd.(supra) it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.

20. In  Sujit  Pal(supra) a  Division  Bench  of  the  Calcutta High  Court  has  taken  the  same  view.  There,  the  defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction  and  took  possession  of  the  property.  The  Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid  of  police.  The  Court  observed  that  no  technicality  can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled  only  where  such  mandatory  direction  is  given  for restoration  of  possession  to  the  aggrieved  party.  This  was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.

21. There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical  objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The court must ensure full justice between the parties before it.”

25. In  the  present  case  the  Company  and  its  Directors/servants  were

certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as

found  hereinabove,  the  transferee  and  its  Directors/servants  have  not

Page 33

33 violated the Order of 08.05.2014.  The transferee and its Directors/servants

were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order

of 08.05.2014.  In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014,

this  Court  had  found  the  transfer  in  favour  of  the  transferee  to  be

questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter

in the light of directions contained in said para 38.  In the circumstances, no

further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014.

Further,  according  to  the  record  the  transferee  had  parted  with  full

consideration  way  back  on  04.04.2013.   In  the  totality  of  these

circumstances  we  do  not  think  it  appropriate  to  exercise  our  power  to

invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014.

26. We thus find the Company and its Directors/servants namely alleged

Contemnor Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 guilty of having violated the Order of

08.05.2014.  In our view, ends of justice would be met if fine is imposed on

the Contemnors.  We impose fine of Rs.2,000/- on the Company.  Further,

fine of Rs.2,000/- each is imposed on Contemnor Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Fine

shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within four weeks from

today.  In case of failure by Contemnor Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to deposit the

Page 34

34 amount of fine within the time stipulated, they shall  undergo sentence of

simple imprisonment for one month.  

27. With  these  observations,  we  close   Contempt  Petition  Nos.338  of

2014 and 375 of 2014 and the same stand disposed of.

28. In  Contempt  Petition  Nos.24-25  of  2015  it  is  submitted  that  the

contemnors  have  obstructed  the  implementation  of  the  judgment  dated

13.11.2014 passed by this Court.  The acts alleged are in the nature of legal

proceedings initiated by the contemnors and as such we do not find any

reason  to  invoke  our  contempt  jurisdiction.   Said  Contempt  Petition

Nos.24-25 of 2015 thus stand dismissed.

29. In Contempt Petition No.307 of 2015 it is alleged that the direction

issued by this Court in paragraph No.33 of its Judgment dated 13.11.2014

has not been complied with by the contemnors.  Since no notice as regards

this Contempt Petition was issued to the contemnors we issue notice to the

contemnors returnable in six weeks.  The matter shall be placed before the

appropriate Bench.   

………………………….J.

Page 35

35        (Anil R. Dave)

       ..……………………….J.         (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, November 18, 2016