1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 845  OF 2018  

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ORS.   …..PETITIONERS  

VERSUS  

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                   …..RESPONDENTS  

WITH  

CONTEMPT PETN. (C) NO. 1838 OF 2018 IN W.P. (C) NO. 845 OF  2018  

CONTEMPT PETN. (C) NO. 55 OF 2019 IN W.P. (C) NO. 845 OF  2018  

AND  

CONTEMPT PETN. (C) NO. 185 OF 2019 IN W.P. (C) NO. 845 OF  2018  

2  

J U D G M E N T  

R.F. Nariman, J.   

1. Three contempt petitions are before us, having been filed by  

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. [“Ericsson”] against Reliance Communications  

Ltd. [“RCom”], Reliance Telecom Ltd. [“RTL”], and Reliance Infratel  

Ltd. [“RITL”] [hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “Reliance  

Companies” or “Companies”].  

2. The brief facts necessary to appreciate these matters are as  

follows:  

On 25.01.2013, Ericsson and RCom entered into a Managed  

Service Agreement whereby Ericsson agreed to provide RCom  

managed services, i.e., operation, maintenance, and management of  

RCom’s network. Ericsson raised invoices from time to time in  

consideration of services provided, and on receiving no payment,  

ultimately issued three notices, each dated 07.05.2017, under the  

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“Insolvency Code”] to the  

three Reliance Companies, calling upon them to pay an amount of INR  

9.78 crore. These notices were replied to on 19.05.2017, whereby the  

three Reliance Companies stated that the performance of Ericsson had

3  

been inconsistent. After this date, discussions took place between the  

parties, and an understanding was reached for making payment of the  

outstanding invoices. However, even this understanding fell through,  

and on 07.09.2017, Ericsson issued a letter to the three Reliance  

Companies, terminating the agreement between them, and calling  

upon them to pay the outstanding amount in full. At this stage, on  

08.09.2017, Ericsson filed three applications under Section 9 of the  

Code as operational creditors. On 15.05.2018, the National Company  

Law Tribunal [“NCLT”] admitted the aforesaid petitions and appointed  

three Interim Resolution Professionals on 18.05.2018 to carry out the  

corporate insolvency resolution process. At this stage, appeals were  

filed against the NCLT order. The National Company Law Appellate  

Tribunal [“NCLAT”], by order dated 30.05.2018, stayed the orders  

dated 15.05.2018 and 18.05.2018 passed by the NCLT, and recorded  

the statement of counsel appearing on behalf of the Reliance  

Companies that the matter had been agreed to be settled for a sum of  

INR 550 crore, which would be paid within 120 days’ time. The order  

recorded that both the Reliance Companies as well as Ericsson were  

to file respective affidavits of undertaking in terms of the statements  

made before the NCLT. These undertakings were so filed in June,

4  

2018. At this stage, the three Reliance Companies filed a writ petition  

in this Court on 17.07.2018 in which they asked for quashing/closure of  

the corporate insolvency resolution process in view of settlement of  

disputes between them and Ericsson. In this writ petition, by an order  

dated 03.08.2018, this Court heard learned counsel who appeared on  

behalf of RCom and its group companies, and recorded that the  

timeline of 120 days shall be strictly adhered to and payment of INR  

550 crore is to be made on or before 30.09.2018.  Undertakings to this  

effect were to be filed before this Court by Chairmen of the Companies  

concerned. The undertakings that were given by the Chairmen of these  

Companies, pursuant to this order, were dated 09.08.2018 and are a  

serious bone of contention between the parties in that these  

undertakings stated that the sum of INR 550 crore will be paid “upon  

sale of assets of the company”. This being the case, a contempt  

petition, being Contempt Petition No. 1838 of 2018 [“first contempt  

petition”], dated 01.10.2018, was moved by Ericsson, in which it was  

expressly stated that the undertakings were not in terms of this Court’s  

order and that the Companies aforestated have no intention of abiding  

by their commitment to pay the necessary sum of money within the  

time stated. Meanwhile, on 27.09.2018, the Reliance Companies

5  

applied for extension of time for payment by 60 days, expressly stating  

that since sale of other spectrum had not reached a stage of  

completion, in order to enable the Companies to make payments, they  

would require this extension. Both the application for extension and the  

contempt petition came up for hearing before this Court on 23.10.2018,  

and it was made clear, as a last opportunity, that the aforesaid amount  

must be paid on or before 15.12.2018, and that interest at the rate of  

12% per annum would also have to be paid for delayed payment  

beyond 30.09.2018. It was also made clear that the petition for  

contempt may be revived if payment is not so made by this date. A  

second application to extend time was moved on 12.12.2018, citing the  

same excuse of other spectrum not yet being saleable. This time,  

extension of time was asked for making the payment within two weeks  

from the date on which a No-Objection Certificate [“NOC”] is given by  

the Department of Telecommunications [“DoT”] for sale of other  

spectrum. On 13.12.2018, this Court made it clear that it was not  

inclined to grant any such extension, as a result of which, the second  

application for extension of time was dismissed as withdrawn. While  

matters stood thus, a letter dated 21.01.2019 was written by the  

advocates of the three Reliance Companies, who stated that on

6  

09.01.2019, INR 118 crore had already been deposited with the  

Registry of this Court, and that the total outstanding, as on date,  

together with interest, would be roughly INR 570 crore. This letter  

specifically states that the net figure of INR 453 crore would be paid by  

31.01.2019, conditional upon withdrawal of the two contempt petitions  

(a second contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No. 55 of 2019,  

was also filed on 02.01.2019) and upon withdrawal of pending  

arbitration proceedings. This was replied to by the advocates of  

Ericsson, stating that an appropriate application may be moved in the  

Supreme Court, as once notice of contempt is issued, the Court alone  

can pass necessary orders to effectuate the settlement.  However, on  

01.02.2019, the RCom group wrote to various stock exchanges,  

making it clear that they will now not resist the corporate insolvency  

resolution process that had hitherto been stayed. This led to the filing  

of a third contempt petition, namely, Contempt Petition No. 185 of  

2019, in which, various prayers were asked for, including issuance of a  

notice of contempt against the Chairman of the State Bank of India  

[“SBI”], who headed the Joint Lenders’ Forum comprising of 46  

financial creditors of the RCom group.  

7  

3. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate appearing on  

behalf of Ericsson, painstakingly took us through the NCLAT order  

dated 30.05.2018 as well as our orders. According to the learned  

Senior Advocate, the administration of justice has been sought to be  

interfered with by the Reliance Companies in two ways. First and  

foremost, the payment of INR 550 crore to his client was not  

conditional upon sale of spectrum as is clear from all the orders  

passed. In fact, this was the understanding of the NCLAT order dated  

30.05.2018 by the Reliance Companies, as was clear from the  

undertakings that were filed by their Directors pursuant to this order.   

However, mischievously, the undertakings filed pursuant to this Court’s  

order dated 03.08.2018 brought in this condition for the first time, and  

was directly contrary to this Court’s order dated 03.08.2018. He argued  

that this was the occasion for moving the first contempt petition on  

01.10.2018 in which this was pointed out. He also argued that the reply  

made to the contempt petition, together with the correspondence  

between the parties, would show that no bona fide efforts were made  

to pay this sum of INR 550 crore at any stage, and that the plea that  

the Companies were unable to pay is clearly belied by their own  

advocates’ letter dated 21.01.2019, in which it was stated that full

8  

payment would be made within a period of 10 days. He, therefore,  

argued that both on account of furnishing false undertakings to this  

Court as well as wilfully breaching the said undertakings and this  

Court’s orders, the administration of justice has been sought to be  

interfered with. He cited judgments in order to buttress these  

contentions.   

4. On the other hand, Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Kapil Sibal,  

learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of RCom, and RITL and  

RTL, respectively, have argued that at best, if the settled amount of  

INR 550 crore, in the place of INR 1500 crore, was not paid to  

Ericsson, the corporate insolvency resolution process, which was  

stalled, would begin afresh, and Ericsson would then stand in line as  

an operational creditor to claim the entire sum of INR 1500 crore. In  

any case, it is also obvious from the NCLAT order dated 30.05.2018,  

which was referred to by the orders of this Court, that the sum of INR  

550 crore was to be paid from the sale of assets of the corporate  

debtor, which is part and parcel of the order dated 30.05.2018. The  

undertakings given by the Chairmen of the three Reliance Companies,  

dated 09.08.2018, are therefore, in accordance with the NCLAT order  

as well as the order of this Court dated 03.08.2018. They further

9  

argued that, in any case, even if such undertakings were not in  

accordance with these orders, no complaint was ever made by  

Ericsson, which went along with the undertakings. They also argued  

that, throughout, the three Reliance Companies did their best to pay  

INR 550 crore, as is clear from the correspondence between the  

parties and their conduct. Also, as recently as 07.01.2019, the moment  

they got income tax refunds amounting to INR 118 crore, this sum was  

deposited in the Registry of this Court, in compliance of this Court’s  

orders. Therefore, according to them, there was no breach of  

undertakings, nor has there been any wilful default. Despite their best  

efforts, the DoT insisted on adhering to certain guidelines, as a result  

of which, it did not give its NOC for sale of spectrum, and therefore, it  

had now become impossible for the three Reliance Companies to pay  

the aforesaid amount. The very fact that they have now succumbed to  

the corporate insolvency resolution process going forward would show  

their bona fides. In any case, they stated that they are still ready and  

willing to pay whatever they can, by way of income tax refunds.  

Another sum of INR 129 crore has now come by way of income tax  

refunds, which can be further adjusted. Also, an extremely recent  

refund order of INR 134 crore can also be used in part payment of the

10  

sum of INR 550 crore. Thus, a total sum of INR 391 crore, out of INR  

550 crore, can, in fact, be paid as of today. All this would show that  

they are doing their best to make this payment, and therefore, cannot  

be characterized as wilful defaulters. They also made a fervent prayer  

that the special leave petition and the writ petition should be dismissed  

as withdrawn, as the inevitable has now occurred, and the corporate  

insolvency resolution process has to now go forward. They also cited  

various judgments to buttress their submissions.   

5. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on  

behalf of the Chairman, SBI, has argued that the Joint Lenders’ Forum,  

being allowed to sell assets outside of the corporate insolvency  

resolution process has nothing to do with the Ericsson transaction.  

According to him, prayers (c) and (j) of the Contempt Petition No. 185  

of 2019 are not reliefs that can be given in a contempt petition. Also, it  

is wholly unnecessary to file an affidavit stating the total amount  

received from sale of assets of the corporate debtors post the  

settlement dated 30.05.2018. Equally, prayer (j), asking for a direction   

for SBI to bring in amounts due and payable so as to purge itself of  

contempt does not lie against the Joint Lenders’ Forum in view of the

11  

fact that the Ericsson transaction is wholly independent of sale of  

assets.  

6. Since everything turns on the order of NCLAT dated 30.05.2018,  

and the three orders of this Court, these orders are set out hereunder:  

The order of the NCLAT, dated 30.05.2018, states:  

“These appeals have been preferred by the  Appellants-Directors and Shareholders of ‘Reliance  Infratel Ltd.’; ‘Reliance Telecom Ltd.’ and ‘Reliance  Communications Ltd.’ against the common orders  dated 15th May, 2018 and 18th May, 2018, passed  by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company  Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, whereby  and whereunder, the application(s) under Section 9  of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016  (hereinafter referred to as “I&B Code”) preferred by  the Respondent- ‘Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.’-  (‘Operational Creditor’) have been admitted, order of  ‘Moratorium’ has been passed and ‘Insolvency  Resolution Professional’ has been appointed.   

Apart from the ground that an arbitration  proceeding is pending and the Hon’ble Supreme  Court has passed an order, some other grounds  have also been taken to assail the impugned orders.  

2. The ‘Financial Creditors’- ‘Joint Lenders  Forum’, some other Banks and ‘Ericsson India Pvt.  Ltd.’- (‘Operational Creditor’) have appeared. It is  informed that interests of a number of Banks are  involved who are awaiting the decision of this  Appellate Tribunal as they intend to recover the  amount.   

3. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel  for the ‘Joint Lenders Forum’- (‘Financial Creditors’)

12  

submitted that they have reached an agreement with  the ‘Corporate Debtors’ for sale of assets of the  ‘Corporate Debtors’, pursuant to which, the  ‘Financial Creditors’ can recover a sum of Rs.  18,100 crores approximately. He further submits that  on re-structuring and sale of assets, the ‘Financial  Creditors’ can recover Rs. 37,000 Crores  approximately.   

4. According to them, in view of the impugned  order, the Bank is not in a position to recover the  amount and there is recurring loss of more than  crores per day.   

5. Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, learned Senior Counsel  appearing on behalf of the ‘Standard Chartered  Bank’ has also taken similar plea and supported the  stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the  ‘Joint Lenders Forum’.  

6. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel  appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that  if the impugned order is stayed and/or set aside, the  parties may settle the matter.  

7. The case was taken up yesterday (29th May,  2018) and on the request of the parties, the case  was adjourned to find out whether the Appellants  and the ‘Operational Creditors’ can settle the matter.   

8. Mr. Salman Khursid, Mr. Arun Kathpalia and  Mr. Anil Kher, learned Senior Counsel appear on  behalf of the ‘Operational Creditors’ in the respective  cases. They submitted that the Respondent-  ‘Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.’- (‘Operational Creditor’) has  agreed to settle the matter if affront payment of Rs.  600 Crores (Rupees Six hundred Crores Only) is  made by the Appellants/’Corporate Debtors’.   

9. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for  the Appellants informed that the Appellants have  agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 550 Crores (Rupees five  hundred fifty Crores only) (jointly) in favor of

13  

‘Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.’- (‘Operational Creditor’) and  sought for 120 days’ time to pay the total amount.   

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on  behalf of ‘Ericsson India Private Limited’-  (‘Operational Creditor’), on instructions from the  Respondent, informed that the 1st Respondent has  agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 550 Crores (Rupees  Five hundred fifty Crores only), if the total amount is  paid within 120 days as proposed by the learned  Senior Counsel for the Appellants.  

11. Taking into consideration the stand taken by  the parties and the fact that if the ‘Corporate  Insolvency Resolution Process’ is allowed to  continue, all the ‘Financial Creditors’ as also the  ‘Operational Creditors’ may suffer more loss and the  Appellants have made out a prima facie case, as  agreed and suggested by learned Senior Counsel  for the Appellants and learned Senior Counsel for  the ‘Joint Lenders Forum’ and the learned Senior  Counsel for the ‘Operational Creditor’- ‘Ericsson  India Pvt. Ltd.’, we pass the following orders:   

i. Until further orders, the impugned orders  dated 15th May, 2018 and 18th May, 2018,  passed by the Adjudicating Authority,  Mumbai Bench in C.P. (IB) 1385, 1386 &  1387 (MB)/2017, shall remain stayed. The  ‘Resolution Professional’ will allow the  managements of the ‘Corporate Debtors’ to  function. He may attend the office of the  ‘Corporate Debtors’ till further order is  passed by this Appellate Tribunal. Thereby,  the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution  Process’ initiated against the ‘Corporate  Debtors’ namely— ‘Reliance Infratel Ltd.’;  ‘Reliance Telecom Ltd.’ and ‘Reliance  Communications Ltd.’ shall remain stayed,  until further orders.  

14  

ii. The ‘Financial Creditors’/’Joint Lenders  Forum’ with whom the assets of the  ‘Corporate Debtors’ have been mortgaged  as also the ‘Corporate Debtors’ are given  liberty to sell the assets of the ‘Corporate  Debtors’ and to deposit the total amount in  the account of the lead Bank of Joint  Lenders Forum which shall be subject to  the decision of these appeals. If the  appeals are rejected, in such case, the  ‘Financial Creditors’/’Joint Lenders Forum’  and other Banks with whom the amount is  deposited, will have to return the total  amount in the respective accounts of the  ‘Corporate Debtors’.   

iii. The Chairman, Managing Directors,  Directors and other members of the  ‘Corporate Debtors’ namely— ‘Reliance  Infratel Ltd.’; ‘Reliance Telecom Ltd.’ and  ‘Reliance Communications Ltd.’ are  directed to pay a sum of Rs. 550 Crores  (Rupees Five Hundred Fifty Crores Only)  (jointly) in favour of ‘Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.’  within 120 days i.e. by 30th September,  2018. In case of non-payment of the  amount and part of the same, the  concerned appeal(s) may be dismissed and  this Appellate Tribunal may direct to  complete the ‘Corporate Insolvency  Resolution Process’ and may pass  appropriate order. The payment of Rs. 550  Crores (Rupees Five Hundred Fifty Crores  Only) in favour of the ‘Operational Creditor’  shall be subject to the decision of these  appeals. If the appeals are dismissed, the  ‘Operational Creditor’ will pay back the  amount to the ‘Corporate Debtors’.  

12. The Appellants and the ‘Operational  Creditors’ are directed to file their respective

15  

affidavits of undertaking in terms of their statement  as made and recorded above within 10 days.  

Let the appeals be listed ‘for admission’ on 3rd  October, 2018.   

13. In the meantime, it will be open to the  parties to file Interlocutory Application if orders and  directions given above are not complied.  Interlocutory Application Nos. 701-702, 709-710 and  712-713 of 2018 stand disposed of with aforesaid  observations and directions.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

The order of the Supreme Court, dated 03.08.2018, states:  

“Applications seeking exemption from filing  certified copy of the impugned orders are allowed.  

Permission to file Appeals is granted.  

Applications for impleadment are allowed.   

Reading the interim Order dated 30.05.2018 of  the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, it is  clear that Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., who is an  Operational Creditor, is willing to settle its debt of  over Rs. 1500 Crores for a sum of Rs. 550 Crores  (Rupees Five Hundred Fifty Crores only) which is to  be paid within 120 days from the date of that order  i.e. by 30th September, 2018.   

Having heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned  Senior Counsel for Neptune Steel Strips Ltd. and  Mahima Mercantile Credits Ltd., Mr. Kapil Sibal,  learned Senior Counsel for Reliance  Communications Limited & Ors. and Mr. Tushar  Mehta, learned ASG for Joint Lenders Forum/SBI,  we are of the view that this time-line shall be strictly  adhered to and payment of Rs. 550 Crores (Rupees  Five Hundred Fifty Crores only) be made on or  before 30th September, 2018.  

16  

In the meanwhile, the undertaking that is to be  given by the Chairman of the Company concerned  shall be given within a period of one week from  today.  

Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG appearing for  the Joint Lenders Forum agrees to this. Mr.  Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel for  Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. also agrees to it.  

In this view of the matter, list on Monday, the 1st  October, 2018.   

Needless to say, the sale of the assets  concerned will go through as has been stated in the  orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

The order of the Supreme Court, dated 23.10.2018, states:  

“I.A. No. 141871/2018:   

The applicants in this I.A. state that - thanks to a  situation which is beyond their control - they have  not been able to make the requisite payment on or  before 30.09.2018 in accordance with the  undertaking given to this Court.   

At the request of Mr. Kapil Sibal, as a last  opportunity, we make it clear that the amount that is  to be paid to Mr. Dave’s client shall be paid on or  before 15.12.2018. We also make it clear that  interest shall begin ticking on this amount at the rate  of 12% p.a. for delayed payment beyond  30.09.2018.   

We make it clear that no time beyond  15.12.2018, in any case, will be given. We also  make it clear that Mr. Dave may revive his I.A. for  contempt, if payment is not made.  

I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.   

17  

C.A. Nos. 9337-9338/2018:   

The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the  signed order.  

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

 The order of the Supreme Court, dated 13.12.2018, states:  

“IA No. 180453/2018 in W.P. (C.) No. 845/2018  is dismissed as withdrawn.   

List the matters on Friday, the 14th December,  2018.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

7. A perusal of the NCLAT order dated 30.05.2018 would show that  

the financial creditors’/Joint Lenders’ Forum stated that they have  

reached an agreement with the corporate debtors for the sale of assets  

of the corporate debtors, pursuant to which they can recover a sum of  

INR 18,100 crore. Also, from restructuring and sale of further assets, a  

further sum of INR 37,000 crore could be recovered, which would then  

suffice to pay off the entire debt of the secured creditors. This order  

also recorded that Ericsson had agreed to settle the debt in its favour  

(which amounted to roughly INR 1500 crore) for the sum of INR 550  

crore within a period of 120 days. As a result of this, the erstwhile  

management continued in the saddle; the corporate insolvency  

resolution process was stayed until further orders; the financial

18  

creditors’/Joint Lenders’ Forum was given liberty to sell assets of the  

corporate debtors and to deposit the amount so received in an account  

of the lead bank, i.e., SBI; and the sum of INR 550 crore was directed  

to be paid by 30.09.2018. It was made clear that in case of non-

payment, the concerned appeals may be dismissed, and the NCLAT  

may direct the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution  

process. In any case, the amount so deposited with the financial  

creditors’/Joint Lenders’ Forum would be subject to the decision of  

these appeals, and that if the appeals are dismissed, the financial  

creditors’/Joint Lenders’ Forum will pay back this amount to the  

corporate debtors. Most importantly, the corporate debtors and  

creditors were directed to file their respective affidavits of undertaking  

in terms of the statements recorded.   

8. At this stage, it is important to set out one sample undertaking  

that has been filed on behalf of one of the Reliance Companies, i.e., by  

the Director of RITL. This affidavit of undertaking reads as follows:  

“BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW  APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI  

xxx xxx xxx  

AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING OF THE  APPELLANTS

19  

I, Suresh Madihally Rangchar, S/o Sh. Rangachar M.  Raghavachar, aged about 54 years, R/o Imperial  Tower, Flat No. 3604, 36th Floor, South Wing, BB  Nakashe Marg, Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 036, do hereby  solemnly affirm and state as under:  

1) That I am the Appellant and the Director of  

the Reliance Infratel Ltd. in the above said  

matter and as such I am well acquainted with  

all the facts and circumstances of the case  

and am fully competent to swear this affidavit  

for the Reliance Infratel Ltd.  

2) That I am giving this affidavit cum  

undertaking on behalf of the Reliance Infratel  

Ltd. pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble  

Tribunal dated 30.05.2018.  

3) That the Reliance Infratel Ltd. alongwith  

Reliance Communications Ltd. and Reliance  

Telecom Ltd. and their respective directors  

shall jointly pay a sum of Rs.550 Crores  

(Rupees Five Hundred Fifty Crores Only) to  

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (Operational  

Creditors) within a period of 120 days i.e. by  

30th September, 2018.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

 This undertaking makes it clear that the understanding of the three  

Reliance Companies with regard to the NCLAT order dated 30.05.2018  

was that a sum of INR 550 crore will be paid by 30.09.2018 without  

there being any linkage to sale of assets, as separately stated in the  

order. Even otherwise, reading the order as a whole, it is clear that

20  

whereas INR 550 crore had to be paid within 120 days, sale of assets  

could take place at any time in the future without any time limit being  

mentioned. This being the case, it is futile to contend that this order  

itself made it clear that the sum of INR 550 crore was to be obtained  

only from sale of assets. Both the undertakings as well as a plain  

reading of the NCLAT order, militate against any such linkage.   

9. On 03.08.2018, the writ petition that was filed before this Court  

was taken up. It is important to note that this writ petition expressly  

states that this Court was approached so that it could pass orders  

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash/close the  

corporate insolvency resolution process, which no other court or  

tribunal could do. This was done on the footing that the parties have  

“fully, mutually, and finally settled all the disputes between them” as  

has been noted in the NCLAT order dated 30.05.2018. When this writ  

petition came up for hearing, the order dated 03.08.2018 clearly  

records that the payment of INR 550 crore will be made on or before  

30.09.2018, and an undertaking was to be given by the Chairmen of  

the Reliance Companies to that effect. The order separately noted that  

the sale of assets will continue, as has been stated in the orders of the  

NCLT and the NCLAT. A reading of this order also leaves no manner

21  

of doubt that the undertakings that were to be given by the Chairmen  

of the Companies concerned were only that the payment of INR 550  

crore was to be made on or before 30.09.2018. There is no doubt  

whatsoever that there was no linkage with any sale of assets of these  

Companies.   

10. Despite the aforesaid position being clear, on 09.08.2018, the  

affidavits of undertaking, in pursuance of this Court’s order dated  

03.08.2018, were given by the Chairmen of the Reliance Companies.  

A sample undertaking, filed by the Chairman of RCom, reads as  

follows:  

“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

xxx xxx xxx  

AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING/COMPLIANCE  

I, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani, S/o Late Shri Dhirajlal  Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, aged about 60 years,  residing at 39, ‘Sea Wind’, Cuffe Parade Colaba,  Mumbai – 400005, do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:  

1. That I am the Chairman of the Reliance  Communications Limited (“Company”), the  holding company of Reliance Telecom  Limited and Reliance Infratel Limited, the  Petitioners in the above Writ Petition, I am  well acquainted with the facts of the case and  as such I am competent to swear this  affidavit.

22  

2.   By order dated 30 May, 2018, the Hon’ble  National Company Law Appellate Tribunal  (“NCLAT”) by way of an interim order  recorded settlement between the parties and  permitted sale of the assets for repayment to  the banks.  Pursuant to the said order, the  Petitioner gave an Undertaking dated 1st  June 2018 before the NCLAT inter alia  stating as under:  

“that the Reliance Infratel Ltd.  alongwith Reliance Communications  Ltd. and Reliance Telecom  Ltd. and  their respective Director shall jointly  pay a sum of Rs.550 Crores  (Rupees Five Hundred Fifty Crores  only) to Ericson India Pvt. Ltd.  (Operational Creditors) within a  period of 120 days i.e. 30th  September, 2018.”  

3.  In the Petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court for  

orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to  

be able to proceed with the sale and to effectuate the  

settlement, this Hon’ble Court passed the following  

order:  

“......In the meanwhile, the undertaking that is  to be given by the Chairman of the Company  concerned shall be given within a period of  one week from today.”  

4.  Accordingly, in light of the order of this Hon’ble  Court dated 3rd August, 2018, read with the order of  the Hon’ble NCLAT dated 30th May, 2018, I hereby  undertake that upon the sale of the assets of the  Company, the Company and its directors will honour  their undertaking extracted above.”  

23  

Similar undertakings were filed on behalf of the Chairmen of the other  

two Reliance Companies. A perusal of these undertakings would show  

that they are contrary to the undertakings given by the authorized  

persons of these very Companies pursuant to the NCLAT order dated  

30.05.2018. We have seen that whereas those undertakings were  

unconditional, these undertakings are now conditional upon sale of  

assets of the Companies. These undertakings have obviously not been  

given in accordance with this Court’s order dated 03.08.2018. To  

further compound this misdemeanor, an application to extend time by  

60 days was moved on 27.09.2018, in which the same linkage was  

made to sale of assets before the sum of INR 550 crore could be paid.   

Contrary to Shri Rohatgi’s argument, Ericsson immediately protested in  

the form of a contempt petition, being the first contempt petition that  

was filed on 01.10.2018, in which it was clearly pointed out that the  

said undertaking would show contumacious behavior coupled with the  

fact that the Reliance Companies were wriggling out of the  

commitment made to this Court. When the first contempt petition and  

the first application for extension of time came up for hearing before  

this Court, this Court, vide order dated 23.10.2018, made it clear that  

as a matter of indulgence, a last opportunity would be granted to pay

24  

the aforesaid sum on or before 15.12.2018, making it clear that this is  

conditional upon payment of interest of 12% per annum for delayed  

payment beyond 30.09.2018. It was also made clear that no further  

extension would be granted and that Ericsson may revive the petition  

for contempt if payment is not so made. This order again leads to only  

one conclusion – that the averment made in the application for  

extension of time that the sum of INR 550 crore will be paid out of sale  

of assets was not accepted by this Court, as sale of assets could have  

taken place even beyond 15.12.2018. This further becomes clear from  

the fact that the contempt petition would be revived if this payment  

were not to be made, i.e., it would be open for Ericsson to contend that  

the undertaking given to this Court was not as per this Court’s order,  

and that there had been wilful and contumacious default on part of the  

Reliance Companies.   

11. When a further application for extension of time was made on the  

selfsame ground, this Court made it clear by its order dated  

13.12.2018 that in view of the order passed on 23.10.2018, no further  

extension of time could be granted, and revival of the contempt petition  

would necessarily follow. As a result of this, this I.A. was dismissed as  

withdrawn on the said date.  

25  

12. Meanwhile, in parallel proceedings, this Court did its utmost to  

lend a helping hand, so that, independently of these orders, sale of  

assets could also be affected. The DoT was called before this Court  

and was asked to give its NOC for sale of spectrum. However, it was  

pointed out that this NOC could only be given according to certain  

guidelines, one of which mandated that the buyer of the spectrum  

would have to undertake that it would be responsible for payment of  

the erstwhile debts of the seller.  The sale of spectrum to Reliance Jio,  

therefore, did not fructify, not because the DoT wrongfully refused to  

give its NOC, as has been alleged by the Reliance Companies in their  

pleadings filed in this case. It fell through only because the prospective  

buyer, Reliance Jio, refused to give the undertaking that if called upon,  

it would pay the erstwhile debts of the seller of the spectrum.   

13. We now come to two other contempt petitions that were filed.   

Contempt Petition No.55 of 2019 dated 02.01.2019 was filed in view of  

non-payment of the sum of INR 550 crore on or before 15.12.2018.  

Contempt Petition No.185 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019 was filed pointing  

out two subsequent facts. First, that by a letter dated 21.01.2019, the  

Reliance Companies were willing to pay the entire sum of INR 550  

crore with interest if two conditions were met, namely, withdrawal of

26  

contempt petitions and withdrawal of arbitration proceedings. Ericsson  

replied on 23.01.2019, stating that this could only be done by moving  

an application before this Court as contempt proceedings were  

pending. Secondly, this petition points out that, maliciously, instead of  

moving such appropriate application, from 01.02.2019 onwards, an  

about-turn was taken, and Ericsson was left in the lurch as a decision  

was taken by the three Reliance Companies that the corporate  

insolvency resolution process could be revived.   

14. The law of contempt has been recognized in English law at least  

from the 12th Century A.D. to the present time [see The History of  

Contempt of Court: The Form of Trial and the Mode of Punishment by  

Sir John C. Fox, at page 1]. It is always important to bear in mind, as  

was stated in Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting  

Corporation, [1980] 3 All ER 161 [House of Lords], per Lord Salmond,  

that:  

“The description “contempt of court” no doubt has an  [sic] historical basis but it is nevertheless most  misleading. Its object is not to protect the dignity of the  courts or the judges but to protect the administration of  justice…....”  

(at page 170)       

27  

In the same judgment, Lord Scarman added:  

“It is high time, I would think, that we re-arranged our  law so that the ancient but misleading term “contempt  of court” disappeared from the law's vocabulary.”  

(at page 184)  

Another edifying statement, by Lord Diplock in Attorney-General v.  

Leveller Magazine Ltd. and Ors., [1979] 1 All ER 745 [House of  

Lords], reads as follows:  

“…… It is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of  court, not the individual court or judge who is  attempting to administer it.  

(at page 749)  

15. It is also important to remember that while considering the  

question of disobedience of an order, what must be regarded is the  

letter and the spirit of the order, together with the bona fide or genuine  

belief of the alleged contemnor as to such order [see Lakshman  

Prasad Agarwal v. Syed Mohammad Kareem, 2009 (6) SCALE 413  

at paragraph 5].   

16. In Rosnan Sam Boyce v. B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd., (1990) 2 SCC  

636, this Court referred to a party who gave an undertaking based on  

an implication or assumption which was false to its knowledge. This  

Court held:

28  

“9. …… We are, of course, quite conscious of the fact  that the proceedings in the contempt are quasi- criminal in nature, that the law of contempt has to be  strictly interpreted and that the requirements of that  law must be strictly complied with before any person  can be committed for contempt. However, as we have  pointed out, respondent 1 gave an undertaking based  on an implication or assumption which was false to its  knowledge and to the knowledge of respondent 2.  Respondent 2 was equally instrumental in the giving of  this undertaking. This implication or assumption was  made explicit by the clarification given by the learned  counsel for respondent 1 as set out earlier.  Respondent 2 was equally responsible for instructing  counsel to give this clarification which was false to the  knowledge of both, respondents 1 and 2. Both  respondent 1 and respondent 2 have tried to deceive  the court and the appellant. In view of this, we fail to  see how it can be said that they are not guilty of  contempt.……”  

 Finally, the Court directed the court receiver to take possession of the  

suit premises from the tenant/sub-tenant and hand it over to the  

landlord, as agent, so that the contempt committed be purged.   

17. We have seen from the above narration of facts that the  

undertakings given on 09.08.2018 by the three Chairmen of the three  

Reliance Companies were neither as per the Court’s understanding of  

its order dated 03.08.2018, nor the understanding of the three  

Companies themselves, as is clear from the undertakings given by the  

three Directors pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2018. In this view of

29  

the matter, it is clear that the three Reliance Companies had no  

intention, at the very least, of adhering to the time limit of 120 days or  

to the extended time limit of 60 days plus, as was given by way of  

indulgence, by the order dated 23.10.2018. The undertakings given on  

the footing that the amount of INR 550 crore would be paid only out of  

the sale of assets was false to the knowledge of the three Reliance  

Companies. This itself affects the administration of justice, and is  

therefore, contempt of court. What is of greater relevance is the fact  

that, despite the Reliance Companies’ continuous protestations to the  

contrary, the letter dated 21.01.2019 from the advocate for the three  

Reliance Companies made it clear that the entire payment would be  

made by 31.01.2019, albeit on fulfilment of two conditions. This letter is  

of great importance and is set out in entirety hereinbelow:  

“21 January, 2019  

To,  

xxx xxx xxx  

SUB: COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT  

Dear Sir,    We are concerned for our clients Reliance  Communications Limited (RCom), Reliance Infratel  Limited (RITL) and Reliance Telecom Limited (RTL,

30  

and collectively with RCom and RITL, the RCom  Group), who have instructed us to write to you on  behalf of your client Ericsson India Private Limited  (Ericsson) as under:  

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has vide its  order dated 3 August, 2018 in Writ Petition  (C) No. 845 of 2018, recorded the settlement  arrived at between the RCom Group and  Ericsson before the Hon’ble National  Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)  on 30 May, 2018, pursuant to which Rs.550  crores was to be paid to Ericsson by 30  September, 2018 as full and final settlement  of all dues and claims.  

2. Vide its order dated 23 October, 2018,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the  date for the RCom Group to make payment  to Ericsson and directed that interest at 12%  p.a. on such amount to be paid from 1  October, 2018.  As on 31 January 2019, such  interest would amount to Rs.20.016 crores  being an amount of Rs.22.24 crores less TDS  of Rs. 2.224 crores.  

3. Thus, the total net amount payable by the  RCom Group to Ericsson on 31 January,  2019 is Rs.570.016 crores.  

4. Out of the total settlement payment set  out in para 3 above, the RCom Group has  deposited an amount of Rs.118 crores with  the Registry of the Supreme Court on 9  January, 2019 (Deposited Payment),  pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s  order dated 7 January, 2019.  

5. The RCom Group will make the balance  net settlement payment of Rs.452.016 crores  (Balance Settlement Payment) in favour of  Ericsson on 31 January, 2019 to complete all  their payment obligations to Ericsson.  

31  

6. Ericsson is therefore required to:  

a. Withdraw Contempt Petition  (Civil) Diary No.122/2019 and  Contempt Petition (C) No.1838/2018  in W.P.(C) No.845/2018 filed on its  behalf, immediately upon receipt of  the Balance Settlement Payment  and towards the same, prepare and  send for our consideration and for  us to  mutually agree by 29 January,  2019, the draft application to be  made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court  for withdrawal of the said Contempt  Petitions;  

b. Withdraw all its claims and  contentions as per the Arbitration  between RCom and its affiliates,  and Ericsson, pending before the  Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal comprising  Justice Mr. S.B. Sinha, Justice Mr.  Swatanter Kumar, and Justice V.S.  Sirpurkar, and towards the same,  prepare and sent for our  consideration and for us to mutually  agree by 29 January 2019, the draft  application to be made to the  Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal for  withdrawal of all claims and  contentions, and the consequent  termination of proceedings.  

c. Sign and return the attached No  Dues Confirmation simultaneous  with the Demand Draft for an  amount of Rs. 452.016 crores, being  handed over to Ericsson on 31  January 2019.  

Yours sincerely,  

xxx xxx xxx”

32  

18. It may be pointed out that in their reply to the Contempt Petition  

No.55 of 2019, RCom and its group companies had stated that they  

were “disabled” from paying the amount of INR 550 crore plus interest;  

that they “were and are unable to pay”; and finally, that:  

“xxx xxx xxx  

39. The Respondents had submitted the Undertaking  on behalf of RCom Group Companies based on the  lenders’ consent for monetization of the Other  Spectrum for Rs.975 crores and in the genuine hope  and bonafide belief that Asset Monetization Scheme  would be implemented and Ericsson shall be paid an  amount of Rs.550 crores along with interest, however,  the same has become impossible to be achieved.  

xxx xxx xxx”  

 19. Obviously, the letter dated 21.01.2019 by the advocates on  

behalf of the Reliance Companies would belie each of the aforesaid  

statements made in the said reply affidavit. There is, therefore, no  

doubt whatsoever that the three Reliance Companies have wilfully not  

paid the sum of INR 550 crore plus interest and have thus breached  

the undertakings given to this Court.   

20. Another disturbing feature of the reply affidavit filed in this Court  

by the Chairman of RCom to Contempt Petition No. 55 of 2019 is the  

statement that RCom has not taken or received any advantage on

33  

account of the undertaking submitted before this Court. This, again, is  

a wholly incorrect statement, given the fact that a writ petition was filed  

in this Court seeking quashing of the corporate insolvency resolution  

process on settlement of the matter with Ericsson, which could not be  

achieved without such undertaking being given to this Court. We are of  

the view that any unconditional apology given that there was no  

intention to make any wrongful undertaking or that the undertaking was  

submitted bona fide must be rejected. It is clear that this reply affidavit  

clearly demonstrates the cavalier attitude of the deponent of this  

affidavit to the highest court of the land.  

21. However, Shri Rohatgi and Shri Sibal relied upon the following  

judgments:  

(i) Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47 was a  

case where an express undertaking to hand over possession to a  

receiver was not given. In this view of the matter, it was held that it  

would not be possible to state that the appellant had wilfully disobeyed  

or committed breach of such undertaking. This case has no application  

on facts to the present case.  

34  

(ii) In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11  

SCC 1, this Court held:  

“17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act  defines “civil contempt” and it means wilful  disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,  order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach  of undertaking given to a court. “Wilful” means an act  or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally  and with the specific intent to do something the law  forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something  the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad  purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It  signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or  with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to  constitute contempt the order of the court must be of  such a nature which is capable of execution by the  person charged in normal circumstances. It should not  require any extraordinary effort nor should be  dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or  omission of a third party for its compliance…….”  

This case again has no application to the facts of this case.  We have  

seen that right from the beginning, the sum of INR 550 crore was  

undertaken to be paid, without having to depend upon any act or  

omission of a third party. To say that the sum of INR 550 crore would  

be paid only out of sale of assets of the three Reliance Companies is a  

deliberate misstatement made in the undertakings as well as the  

applications for extension of time filed before this Court, which was  

done with the purpose of circumventing the orders of this Court. We

35  

are also of the view that in the facts of the present case, wilful default  

is made out, as has been pointed out in this judgment.   

(iii) In Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,  

(2010) 12 SCC 770, this Court held:  

“23. Besides this, it would also not be correct to  overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of  contempt of a civil nature given out under Section 2(b)  of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that the  disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to  satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to the  order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is  relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt  would not lie if the order alleged to have been  disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or  rational interpretation of an order or circumstance  which is the factual position in the instant matter. It  would equally not be correct to infer that a party  although acting due to misapprehension of the correct  legal position and in good faith without any motive to  defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed  as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt  proceeding.  

24. To reinforce the aforesaid legal position further, it  would be relevant and appropriate to take into  consideration the settled legal position as reflected in  the judgment and order delivered in Ahmed Ali v.  Supdt., District Jail [1987 Cri LJ 1845 (Gau)] as also in  B.K. Kar v. High Court of Orissa [AIR 1961 SC 1367 :  (1961) 2 Cri LJ 438] that mere unintentional  disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of  contempt and although disobedience might have been  established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part  of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the  contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct.  Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not

36  

sufficient to justify for holding one guilty of contempt. It  is further relevant to bear in mind the settled law on  the law of contempt that casual or accidental or  unintentional acts of disobedience under the  circumstances which negate any suggestion of  contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only  and does not render the contemnor liable to  punishment and this was the view expressed also in  State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari [AIR 1954 Pat  513] and N. Baksi v. O.K. Ghosh [AIR 1957 Pat 528].”  

 This judgment also has no application to the facts of this case as the  

only reasonable or rational interpretation of the orders involved in this  

case leads to the result that INR 550 crore plus interest was to be paid  

without any linkage to sale of assets within a fixed time limit. This is  

also not a case of accidental or unintentional disobedience. As is clear  

from the letter dated 21.01.2019, the Reliance Companies are able to  

pay this amount, but are wilfully refusing to do so. Similarly, the  

judgments in Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, (1994) 4  

SCC 34, at paragraph 34, and Gyanichand v. State of A.P., (2016) 15  

SCC 164, at paragraph 11 also do not apply on the facts of this case.  

The facts of this case are far from cases where directions or orders are  

impossible of compliance.    

22. At this stage, we may point out that the contempt petition against  

the Chairman of SBI would not lie inasmuch as the Ericsson

37  

transaction and the sale of assets by the Joint Lenders’ Forum are  

completely independent of each other, as argued by Shri Dave himself,  

and as has been held by us hereinabove. Also, the statement made in  

paragraph 18 of the Contempt Petition No. 185 of 2019 that, “all the  

respondents in the contempt petition were bound to have handed over  

the amount of INR 550 crore to the petitioner on or before 15.12.2018  

……” is patently incorrect inasmuch as respondent no. 4 (SBI) has  

nothing to do with this amount of INR 550 crore which had to be paid  

over to Ericsson only by the three Reliance Companies. The contempt  

petition against the Chairman of SBI is, therefore, dismissed.  

23. Having held the three Reliance Companies guilty of contempt of  

this Court, it is now necessary to point out Section 12(4) of the  

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows:  

“12. Punishment for contempt of court.—  

xxx xxx xxx  

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court  in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a  company, every person who, at the time the contempt  was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible  to, the company for the conduct of the business of the  company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to  be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be  enforced with the leave of the court, by the detention in  civil prison of each such person :

38  

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section  shall render any such person liable to such  punishment if he proves that the contempt was  committed without his knowledge or that he exercised  all due diligence to prevent its commission.  xxx xxx xxx”  

The question now is as to the punishment to be awarded. Shri Rohatgi  

pointed out that in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India,  

(1998) 4 SCC 409, this Court had held:  

“34. The object of punishment being both curative and  

corrective, these coercions are meant to assist an  

individual complainant to enforce his remedy and there  

is also an element of public policy for punishing civil  

contempt, since the administration of justice would be  

undermined if the order of any court of law is to be  

disregarded with impunity. Under some circumstances,  

compliance of the order may be secured without resort  

to coercion, through the contempt power. For example,  

disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may  

be effectively countered by attaching the earnings of  

the contemner. In the same manner, committing the  

person of the defaulter to prison for failure to comply  

with an order of specific performance of conveyance of  

property, may be met also by the court directing that  

the conveyance be completed by an appointed person.  

Disobedience of an undertaking may in the like  

manner be enforced through process other than  

committal to prison as for example where the breach  

of undertaking is to deliver possession of property in a  

landlord-tenant dispute. Apart from punishing the  

contemner, the court to maintain the majesty of law  

may direct the police force to be utilised for recovery of

39  

possession and burden the contemner with costs,  

exemplary or otherwise.”  

 Thus, disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may be  

countered by orders of attachment instead of committal to prison. On  

the other hand, Shri Dave pointed out that this Court had, in  

Chhaganbhai Norsinbhai v. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai, (1976)  

2 SCC 951, held that in cases of perverse and deliberate flouting of  

undertakings, the High Court rightly observed that it had no option  

except to convict the appellant and sentence him to three months’  

imprisonment, with which this Court agreed. He also pointed out that in  

Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai, (2008)  

14 SCC 561, so-called apologies, which are only tactful moves when  

contemnors are in a tight corner, should not be accepted and a jail  

sentence should be awarded [see paragraphs 77 and 78]. He also  

referred to and relied upon Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M.  

Shetty, (1990) 1 SCC 259, where this Court held:  

“11. When a court accepts an undertaking given by  one of the parties and passes orders based on such  undertaking, the order amounts in substance to an  injunction restraining that party from acting in breach  thereof. The breach of an undertaking given to the  court by or on behalf of a party to a civil proceedings  is, therefore, regarded as tantamount to a breach of  injunction although the remedies were not always

40  

identical. For the purpose of enforcing an undertaking  that undertaking is treated as an order so that an  undertaking, if broken, would involve the same  consequences on the persons breaking that  undertaking as would their disobedience to an order  for an injunction. It is settled law that breach of an  injunction or breach of an undertaking given to a  court by a person in a civil proceeding on the faith of  which the court sanctions a particular course of action  is misconduct amounting to contempt. The remedy in  such circumstances may be in the form of a direction  to the contemnor to purge the contempt or a  sentence of imprisonment or fine or all of them. On  the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of  our finding that there was a breach of the undertaking  we think that mere imposition of imprisonment or fine  will not meet the ends of justice. There will have to be  an order to purge the contempt by directing  respondent 1-contemnor to deliver vacant possession  immediately and issuing necessary further and  consequential directions for enforcing the same.”  

24. Given the facts as aforesaid, we are of the view that the  

contempt of this Court needs to be purged by payment of the sum of  

INR 550 crore together with interest till date. As stated by the letter  

dated 21.01.2019, subject to any calculation error, an amount of INR  

453 crore must be paid to Ericsson in addition to the deposit of INR  

118 crore made in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court  

is directed to pay over the sum of INR 118 crore to Ericsson within a  

period of one week from today. The RCom group is directed to purge  

the contempt of this Court by payment to Ericsson of the sum of INR

41  

453 crore within a period of four weeks from today. In default of such  

payment, the Chairmen who have given undertakings to this Court will  

suffer three months’ imprisonment. In addition to the aforesaid sum  

being paid, a fine amounting to INR 1 crore for each Company must  

also be paid to the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.  

This sum will be paid over to the Supreme Court Legal Services  

Committee. In default of payment of such fine, the Chairmen of these  

Companies will suffer one month’s imprisonment.    

Contempt Petitions are disposed of, as aforesaid.   

             ………………………….J.        (R.F. Nariman)               ………………………….J.        (Vineet Saran)  New Delhi;  February 20, 2019.