Page 1

                                                 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.320 OF 2009

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2006

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.  … PETITIONER/  

                                                                                      APPELLANT   

VERSUS

TUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 129 of the Constitution of India  

read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and rule 3(C) of  

the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975  

making the prayer to punish respondent No.1 for withdrawing a very large  

sum of money from his bank account in a Swiss bank in violation of this  

1

Page 2

Court’s orders dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006. As a matter  

of fact, by an earlier order passed by the Court on April 1, 2010, in course of  

the proceedings of the case, respondent No.1 has actually been held guilty of  

contempt of court; it is a brief order, wherein Paragraphs 6 & 7, the Court  

observed and held as follows:

“6. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a  notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notices it  was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is  that  he  has  violated  the  order  of  this  Court  dated  4.9.2006.  In  fact,  the  respondent  No.1-contemnor  has  filed his reply thereto. However, from a perusal of the  reply filed by the contemnor it is clear that he has not  denied  the  allegation  of  the  petitioner  that  he  has  withdrawn  money  by  flouting  the  order  of  this  Court  dated 4.9.2006.

7. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that there  is  sufficient  material  on  the  record  to  suggest  that  contemnor- respondent No. 1 has committed contempt of  Court.  Therefore,  we  hold  the  contemnor  guilty  of  Contempt of Court.”

2. On that date, however, the Court did not give any punishment to the  

respondent but directed the case to be listed on April 12, 2010 for passing  

the sentence on the contempt, observing further that, in the meanwhile, if the  

contemnor deposited the amount withdrawn from the bank, the Court might  

consider recalling the order passed on that date.

2

Page 3

3. The respondent did not deposit  the amount allegedly withdrawn by  

him from the bank account but on April 6, 2010 filed a petition for recall of  

the order holding him guilty of contempt of court. He took the plea that the  

order dated April  1, 2010 was based on the incorrect premise that in the  

reply to the contempt petition filed by him, he did not deny the allegation  

that he had made withdrawals from his bank account by flouting the Court’s  

order dated September 4, 2006. He pointed out that in the reply petition, he  

had clearly and repeatedly said that he had not withdrawn any money from  

his bank account after the orders of this Court, dated September 4, 2006 and  

December 14, 2006 and he reiterated that statement in the petition for recall  

of the order.

4. After that, the case was heard on a number of dates and was finally  

taken up on July 17, 2012 when the matter was practically heard all over  

again also on the question whether or  not  the respondent  had committed  

contempt  of  court  by  withdrawing  money  from his  bank  account  in  the  

Swiss bank in violation of the Court’s orders dated September 4, 2006 and  

December 14, 2006.  

5. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the respective contentions  

made on behalf of the parties may be stated thus. The petitioner, National  

3

Page 4

Fertilizers  Ltd.,  is  a  company  registered  under  the  provisions  of  the  

Companies Act owned and controlled by the GOI.

6.  Karsan  Danismanlik  Turizm  Sanayi  Ve  Ticaret  Limited  STI  

(hereinafter:  Karsan)  is  a  Turkish  company.  The  respondent,  Tuncay  

Alankus was the manager of Karsan with individual signature and one Cihan  

Karanci  (not  a  party  to  this  proceeding)  was  his  deputy  manager  and  

counselor. Both Alankus and Karanci were the beneficiaries of Karsan.

7. The petitioner company entered into an agreement, dated November  

9,  1995  with  Karsan,  which  presented  itself  as  a  producer  of  urea.  The  

contract was for supply of two lakh metric tons of urea, 46 N fertilizer at a  

price of US$ 190 per metric ton. The total value of the contract was US$  

38,000,000. In terms of the contract, the petitioner company was to pay to  

Karsan the full contract value in advance by way of two remittances i.e., (1)  

US$ 380,000 towards insurance premium before entering into the contract  

and (2) US$ 37,620,000 towards cost of urea after entering into the contract.  

8. On November 22, 1995, three bank accounts in the names of Karsan,  

Alankus and Karanci were opened with Pictet and Cie Bank (hereinafter:  

Pictet) in Geneva. The form for opening the account of Karsan indicated that  

Alankus and  Karanci as the beneficial owners.

4

Page 5

9. The three freshly opened accounts were numbered as (i) Account No.  

91923, (ii) Account No. 91924 and (iii) Account No. 91925. In this case, we  

are concerned with the operations in Alankus’s account number 91925 with  

Pictet.

10. On November 23, 1995, Karsan asked the petitioner company to wire  

the sale price of urea on its account, opened with Pictet. On November 29,  

1995, the amount US$37,620,000 was paid by the petitioner company on  

that account.  

11. On November 30, 1995, the account of Karsan was debited and the  

sum of US$ 28,100,000 was transferred to the account of Alankus (Account  

No. 91925) with Pictet; from that amount, the sum of US$12,500,000 was  

split  between November 30, 1995 and May 20, 1996, on the accounts of  

Alankus, his daughter and Cihan Karanci in banks in Ankara, Almaty and  

Geneva.

12. Despite making full payment of the contract money, the petitioner did  

not receive a single grain of urea and it later came to light that the insurance  

cover  taken  out  in  connection  with  the  contract  did  not  provide  any  

protection against the loss suffered by the petitioner.  Enquiries were made  

in India and on May 28, 1996, the CBI lodged a first  information report  

under  section  120B  read  with  sections  409/420  of  the  Penal  Code  and  

5

Page 6

section 13(2) read with section 7/11/13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of  

Corruption Act, 1988 against a number of accused, including Cihan Karanci  

and Tuncay Alankus respondent No.1 (as accused No. 11).

13. In  connection  with  the  criminal  case,  Alankus  and  Karanci  were  

arrested in Geneva on September 16, 1996 and were extradited to India on  

October  3,  1997.  On  being  brought  to  India,  both  the  accused  were  

remanded to judicial custody and after several years of custody Alankus was  

released on bail subject to the condition that he would not leave Delhi.

14. In the trial of the case, after the prosecution had led its evidence and  

Alankus  was  also  examined  under  section  313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure, a petition was submitted on his behalf for examining 63 persons,  

living  in  10  different  countries,  through  video-conferencing,  as  defence  

witnesses.  The trial court by order, dated October 11, 2004 gave permission  

for examination of only 6 out of the 63 witnesses.  Against the order of the  

trial court, Alankus filed criminal revision No.126 of 2005 before the Delhi  

High Court on which the High Court by order dated July 14, 2005 allowed  

him to examine, in addition to the 6 witnesses allowed by the trial court, 21  

more witnesses, of whom a list was placed on record before the High Court,  

at the expense of the State.

6

Page 7

15. Against the order of the Delhi High Court, two special leave petitions  

came to this Court. One, being SLP (Criminal) No.6291 of 2005 was filed  

by the CBI and the other, SLP (Criminal) No.13 of 2006, was filed by the  

present  petitioner.  The  petitioner  in  its  SLP  also  moved  an  application  

making the prayer for a direction to respondent No.1 (Tuncay Alankus) “to  

furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will not withdraw any portion of  

the defrauded amount identified and lying in foreign jurisdiction in general  

and Geneva and Monaco in particular.

16.  Both the aforesaid special leave petitions were tagged together and on  

August 21, 2006 during the hearing of the SLPs, the Court enquired from the  

counsel appearing for respondent No.1 whether he was willing to give an  

undertaking that  he would not  withdraw the money from his Swiss bank  

account.  The  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent  asked  for  a  short  

adjournment to take instructions regarding the undertaking asked for by the  

Court and the SLPs were, therefore, directed to be listed on September 4,  

2006.  

17. On September 3, 2006, the respondent communicated to his lawyer  

Miss Seema Juneja in writing, stating that he had been in jail for about 7.5  

years and after release on bail, under one of the conditions of the bail, he  

was not permitted to leave Delhi. His request for permission to travel abroad  

7

Page 8

and meet his advocates for consultation had been declined. Therefore, he  

could not get any information. He further stated in the communication to his  

lawyer that he had asked Pictet bank for information by fax but he had not  

received any response.  Referring further to the various kinds of proceedings  

going  before  the  Swiss  courts,  he  requested  his  lawyer  to  inform  the  

Supreme Court that he was in India for 10 years and he had no access to his  

accounts in Switzerland and to submit before the Court that the matter had  

already been decided after lapse of 10 years (sic). He had not received any  

reply and he was waiting for further instructions.  

18. On September 4, 2006 this Court was informed about the response of  

the respondent in regard to the undertaking sought for from him and on that  

date this Court passed the following order:-

“Instead  of  giving  an  undertaking,  learned  counsel  has  produced before us a letter dated 3rd September, 2006, said to  have been written by the respondent to his advocate, Ms. Seema  Juneja, trying, inter alia, to say that he is in India for ten years  and has no access to his accounts in Switzerland. It is stated  that, in view of what is stated in this letter, the respondent is not  in  a position to  give an undertaking,  as  noticed in the order  dated 21st August, 2006. Be that as it may, we grant leave and  expedite  the hearing of  the appeals  which shall  be listed for  hearing within a period of three months.  All the parties agree  that  the  appeal  be  heard  on  the  existing  record.   Additional  documents, if any, may be filed within two weeks.  

8

Page 9

Pending disposal of the appeals,  the order of stay granted by  this  Court  on  2nd January,  2006,  will  continue  to  operate.  However, the trial can go on and the respondent, if so advised,  can produce such witnesses which have been allowed by the  order of this Special Judge. We restrain the respondent from  withdrawing the amounts from the accounts in Swiss Bank  till the decision of these appeals.”

(emphasis added)

19. The  special  leave  petitions  were  finally  allowed  by  order,  dated  

December 14, 2006 by which this Court set aside the order of the High Court  

and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration by the High Court. While  

concluding the judgment, this Court made the following direction:

“The interim order dated 4.9.2006 is made absolute to the  effect that the respondent is restrained from withdrawing  the amount from the accounts in Swiss Bank till the decision  of the matter.  The appeals are allowed accordingly.”

(emphasis added)

20. This  contempt  petition  is  filed  alleging  violation  of  the  afore-

mentioned two orders, dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006.  

21. Let  us  now take  a  look  at  some  of  the  connected  proceedings  in  

Switzerland.  On June 19, 1996, the petitioner was able to obtain a criminal  

attachment  order  against  the  three  accounts  in  Pictet,  including  account  

No.91925  in  the  name  of  Tuncay  Alankus.  However,  the  criminal  

9

Page 10

attachment  order  was  defreezed  on  April  1,  2003  as  the  trial  was  not  

concluded within one year and Alankus was not freed on bail during that  

period as per the terms stipulated by the Swiss authorities.  

22. Besides the criminal attachment, dated June 19, 1996, the petitioner  

was also able to obtain the civil attachment of the three bank accounts in  

question on October 3, 2000 from the Court of First Instance, Geneva.

23. On September 30, 2002, Pictet and Cie Bank, Geneva, informed the  

Federal Department of Justice and Police, Geneva, as follows:-

“Please  share  below  the  total  balance  of  the  sued  accounts.  

Their  credits  (value  on  30.09.2002)  are  as  follows:-

Account  No.91923  owner  Karsan  Ltd.  –  US$  232,253/-

Account  No.91924  owner  Mr.  Cihan  Karanci  –  US$ 394,757/-

Account No.91925 owner Mr. Tuncay Alankus –  US$10,763,412.”

24. The civil attachment order dated October 3, 2000 became inoperative  

on June 1, 2006 when the petitioner lost its appeal in Swiss Supreme Court.  

And it was presumably for that reason that the stay petition was filed by the  

petitioner  in  SLP(criminal)  No.13  of  2006  which  was  apparently  on  an  

altogether  different  issue.  Nonetheless,  this  Court  deemed fit  to  pass  the  

10

Page 11

order  dated  September  4,  2006  prohibiting  respondent  No.1  from  

withdrawing any money from the accounts in Swiss bank.  

25. On September 9, 2006, the advocate of the petitioner sent a copy of  

the order dated September 4, 2006 passed by this Court to Pictet which was  

received by Pictet on September 21, 2006.

26. On  December  12,  2006,  the  petitioner’s  Swiss  lawyer  applied  for  

attachment in respect of the amounts lying in Pictet including the amount  

lying in the accounts of respondent No.1.   

27. On December  15,  2006,  the Court  of  the First  Instance  at  Geneva  

granted attachment in favour of the petitioner against respondent No.1 and  

others  in  respect  of  the  amount  lying in  Pictet.  Pictet  acknowledged  the  

Sequestration  order  sent  by  the  petitioner’s  Swiss  attorneys  vide  its  

communication dated, December 20, 2006 which is as under:

Concerns: sequestration no. 06 070 321 Z-C/30199/06

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your mail dated 15 December 2006  and have taken good note of its contents.

Remaining at your disposal and with regards.  

For PICTET & CIE Signature”  

11

Page 12

28. Apparently this attachment too lapsed and finally on March 4, 2009,  

the petitioner’s  Swiss lawyer  obtained a  fresh attachment  order from the  

Court of First Instance, Geneva, but on March 9, 2009 Pictet informed the  

Debts Collection Office at Geneva that they do not hold any assets,  inter  

alia, on behalf of respondent No.1.  

29. On April 23, 2009, the Debts Collection Office at Geneva forwarded  

the  letter  dated  March  9,  2009  of  Pictet  to  the  Swiss  Attorneys  of  the  

petitioner and, completely surprised by the bank’s response. the petitioner  

filed this contempt petition on August 26, 2009.  

30. Mr. Gourab Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing  

for  the  petitioner  strongly argued that  respondent  No.1 had withdrawn a  

huge  sum  of  money  amounting  to  US$10,763,412  from  his  account  

No.91925 with Pictet in brazen violation of this Court’s prohibitory orders,  

dated September 4, 2006 and December 12, 2006 and he is, therefore, liable  

to be given the most stringent punishment.  

31. At  first  sight  the  conduct  of  the  respondent  may  indeed  appear  

contumacious but, a careful scrutiny of the material facts makes it clear that  

respondent No.1 cannot really be held guilty of contempt.

12

Page 13

32. It may be recalled here that on November 21, 2011 on hearing counsel  

for the parties, this Court had passed the following order:-

“Mr.  Shanti  Bhushan,  senior  advocate  appearing  for   the  contemnor  -  Tuncay Alankus,  stated  that  on  September   04,  2006,    when    this    Court passed    the interim   order   of  injunction  against  his  client  (which  was  later  confirmed  by  order dated December 14, 2006), there was no money in his  account No. 91925 with the PICTET   & CIE   Bank, Geneva.  There is, therefore, no question of any withdrawals from that  account after that date in violation of the court's orders.

       In support of the statement, Mr. Bhushan placed great  reliance on the decision of the Swiss Supreme Court dated June  01,  2006.  The  decision  of  the  Swiss  Supreme  Court  indeed  takes note of the fact that on November 29, 1995, the petitioner  (National Fertilizers Limited) paid a sum of $3,76,20,000 into  Account No. 91923 held by Karsan Danismanlik Turizm Sanayi  Ve  Ticaret  Limited  STI  (shortly  known as  'Karsan').  It  then  goes on to give a break up of the   aforesaid      sum    of  $3,76,20,000      from   which,    on    the following     day,    i.e.  on     November   30,   1995,   a    sum of $2,81,00,000 was  transferred to the contemnor's personal account No. 91925.

       From the Swiss Court decision, it is not clear that on the  date  this  Court  passed  the  injunction  order  restraining  the  contemnor from withdrawing any amount from his account, the  account was already bereft of any money.

       Mr. Bhushan also relied upon a Certificate issued by the  Bank, according to which the account in question was closed on  July 25, 2006.

       Mr.  Gourab  Banerjee,  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  for  the  petitioner,  submitted  that  on  the  date  this  Court passed the interim order against the contemnor, there was  substantial money in his account.   In support of this averment,  he  referred  to  the  order  dated  June  24,  1996  passed  by  the  Special  Judge,  Delhi,  granting  bail  to  the  contemnor  and  a  

13

Page 14

certificate  dated  September  30,  2002  issued  by  the  Bank  (a  copy of which is at Annexure P-3 of the Contempt Petition).

       On the basis of the materials so far produced before us,  we are not satisfied and we find it difficult to hold with any  conviction that on the date the interim order of injunction was  passed against the contemnor, there was, in fact, no money in  his account with the PICTET& CIE, Geneva.

       However, one thing is clear from the decision of the Swiss  Court;   that       is,   on    November     30,    1995,   a    sum  of $2,81,00,000   was    credited        to     the   contemnor's  personal account from the amount deposited by the petitioner in  the account of Karsan.

       We   would     like   to    see      the   bank    statement     of  the contemnor's Account No. 91925 held with PICTET & CIE  Bank from November 30, 1995 till the date of the closure of the  account  on  July  25,  2006  to  see  the  inflow and  outflow of  money from that account.

       Mr. Bhushan prays for some time for producing the bank  statement. As prayed by him, put up after six weeks.  

       Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the  contemnor.”

33. In  pursuance  of  the  aforesaid  order,  respondent  No.1  has  filed  an  

affidavit enclosing a copy of the bank statement certified by Pictet and Cie  

bank, Geneva.  From the bank statement it appears that the entire amount in  

account No.91925 was withdrawn by June 21, 2006 and on that date, the  

balance  had  become  nil.  The  bank  has  also  issued  a  certificate  dated  

14

Page 15

September 13, 2010 stating that account No.91925 was closed in their books  

on July 25, 2006.   

34. Mr. Banerjee submitted that no reliance could be placed on the bank  

statement and the number of affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No.1.  

He referred to the acknowledgement made by Pictet bank on September 30,  

2002 according to which, on that date, a sum of US$10,763,412 was lying in  

account  No.91925  of  Tuncay  Alankus.  Mr.  Banerjee  submitted  that  the  

aforesaid amount must have remained in the account until June 1, 2006, the  

date on which the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by  

the petitioner. Further, Pictet in its communication of January 8, 2007 had  

clearly acknowledged the sequestration order and had assured that  it  had  

taken good note of its contents.  It is, therefore, not possible to believe that  

the account had come to nil on June 21, 2006 and it was closed on July 25,  

2006.

35. In  the  letter  of  Pictet  dated  January  8,  2007,  a  copy  of  which  is  

enclosed  as  Annexure  P15  (collectively)  the  debtor’s  name  is  given  as  

“Karsanrizm”; further, the letter does not state that on that date account No.  

91925  in  the  name  Alankus  was  alive  and  was  bearing  some  amount.  

Moreover, the bank is not a party to the present proceedings and, therefore,  

we would not like to make any comment on the conduct of the bank. But on  

15

Page 16

the materials produced before us, it is very difficult to hold the respondent  

guilty of contempt and to punish him for committing contempt of court.  

36. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the attachment against the  

respondent’s account was lifted on June 1, 2006 when the Swiss Supreme  

Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and the petitioner was able to obtain  

the next attachment order only on December 15, 2006.  There was, thus, a  

period of slightly over six months when there was no attachment order in  

respect of the account and according to the bank’s statement, the amount  

was withdrawn on June 21,  2006 (i.e.  ,  twenty days after  the attachment  

order was lifted) and the account was closed on July 25, 2006.  It is, thus,  

clear that on September 4, 2006 when this Court passed the order prohibiting  

respondent No.1 from withdrawing any money from the account there was  

actually no money in the account.  That being the position, there could be no  

question of committing any violation of this Court’s order by respondent  

No.1.  

37. Mr. Banerjee referred to the many affidavits filed by respondent No. 1  

and submitted that in those affidavits he has been taking inconsistent stands.  

It is true that the respondent has filed as many as eight affidavits and in all  

those affidavits  his position does not  appear to be completely consistent.  

But,  it must be recalled that as far back as in September, 2006 and long  

16

Page 17

before this contempt proceeding commenced, the respondent had instructed  

his counsel to submit before this Court, that he was not permitted to leave  

Delhi for the past ten years and since he was not getting any response from  

the Swiss banks, he was not aware of the state of his affairs in Switzerland  

and was, therefore, unable to give the undertaking as asked for by this Court.  

Moreover,  any inconsistencies  in  the  stand of  the  respondent  before this  

Court coupled with the ambiguities in the communications from Pictet may  

give rise to a suspicion of wrong doing.  But without anything else we find it  

very  difficult  to  hold  the  respondent  guilty  of  contempt  of  court  on  the  

definite charge that he withdrew a very large amount from his account in  

Pictet in violation of the orders of this Court.   

38. In Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v.  State of Uttar Pradesh and others1,  

this Court after referring to a number of earlier decisions, in paragraph 19 of  

the judgment, observed as under:-

“In  S.  Abdul  Karim v.  M.K.  Prakash,  Chhotu  Ram v.  Urvashi  Gulati,  Anil  Ratan Sarkar v.  Hirak  Ghosh,  Daroga  Singh v.  B.K. Pandey and  All India Anna Dravida Munnetra   Kazhagam v.  L.K.  Tripathi,  this  Court  held  that  burden  and  standard of proof in contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal  in  nature,  is  the  standard  of  proof  required  in  criminal  proceedings, for the reason that contempt proceedings are quasi  criminal in nature.”

1 (2010) 3 SCC 705

17

Page 18

39. In  Chhotu  Ram v.  Urvashi  Gulati  and  another2,  this  Court  in  

paragraph 2 and 3 of the judgment held as under:-

“2.  As  regards  the  burden  and  standard  of  proof,  the  common legal phraseology “he who asserts must prove” has its  due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to  be constituting the act of contempt.  As regards the “standard of  proof”,  be it  noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  is  quasi-criminal,  and  as  such,  the  standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and  the breach shall  have to be established beyond all reasonable  doubt.  

3.  Lord  Denning  (in  Bramblevale  Ltd.,  Re)  lends  concurrence to the aforesaid and the same reads as below: (All  ER pp. 1063H-1064 C).

“A  contempt  of  court  is  an  offence  of  a  criminal character.  A man may be sent to prison  for it.  It must be satisfactorily proved.  To use the  time-honoured phrase,  it  must  be proved beyond  reasonable doubt.  It is not proved by showing that,  when  the  man  was  asked  about  it,  he  told  lies.  There  must  be  some  further  evidence  to  incriminate  him.   Once  some evidence  is  given,  then his lies can be thrown into the scale against  him.  But there must  be some other evidence….  Where  there  are  two  equally  consistent  possibilities open to the court, it is not right to hold  that  the  offence  is  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt.”

40. Mr.  Banerjee  submitted  that  a  charge  of  contempt  may  also  be  

established  on  preponderance  of  circumstances  and  in  support  of  the  

2 (2001) 7 SCC 530

18

Page 19

submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajendra Sail v. M.P.  

High Court Bar Association and others3.   

41. We have gone through the decision relied upon by Mr. Banerjee and  

we find that in  Rajendra Sail, the Court held the contemnor guilty on the  

basis  of  “preponderant  circumstances”.   In  other  words,  all  the  

circumstances  taken  together  led  to  the  unimpeachable  finding  of  the  

contemnor’s guilt.  But that is  not to say that in  Rajendra Sail this Court  

relaxed or diluted the standard or degree of proof to establish the guilt of  

contempt.   

42. In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as  

discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable  

to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with  

Pictet in violation of this Court’s orders.  

43. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the respondent cannot  

be held guilty of contempt.

44. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court  

held that the respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet  

by  flouting  the  orders  of  this  Court,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  that  order  is   

founded on the premise that the respondent had not denied the allegation  

made by the petitioner against  him.  It  is,  however,  to be noted that  the  3 (2005) 6 SCC 109 at paragraph 45

19

Page 20

respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had  

stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under:

“The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has  not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by  this Hon’ble Court.”

45. The  order  dated  April  1,  2010,  was,  thus,  clearly  based  on  an  

erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled.

46. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit  in the contempt  

petition.  It is dismissed.  

……………………….J. (Aftab Alam)

……………………….J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi; April 2, 2013.  

20