http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 488  of  1998 Contempt Petition (civil)       281      of  1998 Appeal (civil)  1771     of  1990

PETITIONER: BANK OF INDIA .

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIJAY TRANSPORT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/10/2000

BENCH: S.P.Bharucha, Y.K.Sabhawal, Ruma Pal

JUDGMENT:

RUMA PAL, J L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     This  proceeding  in  contempt was initiated  by  this Court suo

     motu, on a prima- facie finding that the respondents 2 and  3  were  guilty of contempt not only  by  dealing  with property  which  was custodia legis but also  by  disobeying orders  of Court.  At the conclusion of the arguments we are of  the  confirmed  view  that the  prima  facie  conclusion arrived at by us was correct, and that the respondents 2 and 3  are liable to be punished for their contumacious conduct. The  respondent  No.   2  describes herself as  the    sole surviving  partner of the respondent No.1.  The  respondent No.   3  is  the  husband and power of  attorney  holder  of respondent  No.   2.   The  litigation  out  of  which  this proceeding arises commenced in 1975 when the petitioner-bank filed  a  suit  against  respondent  no.   1  interalia  for recovery  of  a  sum  of Rs.  18,14,817.91.   The  suit  was instituted in the Court of the Sub Judge, Eluru in the State of  Andhra  Pradesh.  The respondent No.1 raised  a  counter claim  against  the petitioner for a sum of Rs.   34,48,799. On 6th July 1976, the petitioners claim was decreed only to the  extent of a sum of Rs.  1,00,418.55.  The counter claim of  the respondent No.1 was however allowed in its  entirety with  costs.  The petitioner-bank preferred an appeal before the  High Court and prayed for stay of the execution of  the decree  as far as the counter claim was concerned.  The High Court,  by  an  order  dated 28.12.1976,  granted  the  stay subject  to the petitioner-bank depositing Rs.  16 lakhs  as well as a further sum of Rs.  48,890.95 towards costs in the Court  of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru.  The respondent No.1 was  given the liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.  16  lakhs upon  furnishing a bank guarantee for the same amount.   The respondent  No.1 was also given the liberty to withdraw  the amount  deposited on account of costs unconditionally.   The petitioner-bank  deposited  the amount of Rs.  16 lakhs  and Rs.   48,890.95 in the Subordinate Judges Court at  Eluru..

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

The  respondent  No.1 withdrew both sums after furnishing  a bank  guarantee  in favour of the Subordinate Judge for  Rs. 16  lakhs.   The  bank which guaranteed the amount  was  the Karnataka    Bank.    On    20th    September,   1983    the petitioner-banks appeal was allowed by the High Court.  The High  Court held that the petitioner-bank was entitled to  a decree  for  a  sum of Rs.  18,49,209.70 together  with  Rs. 8,15,324.92  as  interest @ 12% p.a.  According to the  High Court,  the petitioners claim would have to be scaled  down because  of  the  provisions of the Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra Areas)  Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938.  The counter  claim of  the  respondent no.1 was dismissed in toto.   From  this decision  both  the petitioner-bank and the respondent  No.1 preferred appeals by way of special leave to this Court.  No stay  was obtained of the High Courts decision in either of the appeals.  During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the petitioner-bank applied to the Subordinate Judge, Eluru for restitution of the amount which had been deposited by  the petitioner pursuant to the order of High Court dated 28.12.1976.   The  Sub Judge, Eluru directed  the  Karnataka Bank  to  deposit the sum of Rs.  16 lakhs guaranteed by  it together  with  the interest accumulated thereon within  one month.   The Karnataka Bank complied with the order and  the amount  so  deposited  was allowed by the Sub  Judge  to  be invested  with the Eluru Branch of the petitioner-bank in  a Double  Benefit  Deposit Account for a period of 12  months. The  facts as subsequently revealed show that it was at this point  that  the respondents conceived a plan to whisk  away this  amount of Rs.16 lakhs  a plan which was cunningly and carefully   forged,  link-by-link.   It   started  with   an application filed by the respondent No.1 before the District Court  for transferring the application for restitution from the Sub Judge, Eluru to the Sub Court, Tadepalligudem on the ground  that  there was an apprehension that the  Sub  Judge Eluru,  would  not  do  justice  to  the  respondents.   The petition  was  dismissed  by  the  District  Judge  on  30th September,  1985.   An appeal was preferred before the  High Court  on 7th October, 1985.  By an ex-parte order the  High Court   of  Andhra  Pradesh   allowed  the  transfer.    The petitioner-bank  unsuccessfully  filed  a  review   petition before the High Court against the exparte order of transfer. The  review petition was rejected on 18th November 1985.  On the  very  next day ( that is, 19th November, 1985) the  Sub Judge,   Tadepalligudem  as  full   Additional  Charge   of Subordinate  Judge,  Eluru, directed the Branch Manager  of the  petitioners  Eluru  Branch to prematurely  encash  the Double  Benefit Deposit Certificate and to transfer the same to  the  Sub  Judge, Tadepalligudem  because  the  execution records  had  already  been   transferred  there.   On  28th November  1985,  the  same  Judge passed  an  order  on  the application  of  the petitioner-bank stating that  the  bank deposit  need  not  be encashed until the  disposal  of  the pending  applications  for  restitution.   Yet,  before  the applications  were  disposed of, on 20th December, 1985  the Judge,  on an application moved by the respondents, directed the  petitioner-bank  to encash the deposit receipt for  Rs. 16  lakhs and to send the same with the accrued interest  by way  of  Bankers cheque or Demand Draft in the name of  the Subordinate   Judge,   Tadepalligudem.     The   order   was communicated to the Branch Manager of the petitioner-bank at Eluru  by the Sheristadar and Bench clerk of the Subordinate Judge  who were accompanied by an advocate and an officer of the  State  Bank  of  India, Tadepalligudem.   All  of  them insisted  on  the  immediate encashment and payment  of  the proceeds  of the fixed deposit.  They refused to leave until

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

the  Branch  Manager agreed to send one of his officials  to the  Tadepalligudem  Court.   On  24th  December  1985,  the petitioners  applications for restitution were taken up for hearing.   At the conclusion of the hearing, at the instance of  the respondents, a notice was issued by the  Subordinate Judge,  Tadepalligudem  to the petitioners Branch  Manager, Eluru  directing  him to appear in person on  26th  December 1985  and  explain  why he had not complied with  the  order dated 20th December 1985.  On 26th December 1985, the Branch Manager    appeared   before     the   Subordinate    Judge, Tadepalligudem  and deposited the amount of Rs.  16 lakhs in his  Court  in the form of a pay order.   Significantly,  on that  very  day,  a  current  account in  the  name  of  the respondent  No.1  was  opened in the State  Bank  of  India, Tadepalligudem  Branch by the respondent No.  3 as the Power of  Attorney holder of respondent No.  1.  On 27th  December 1985   at   about  10.00   a.m.,  the   Subordinate   Judge, Tadepalligudem  handed  over  the pay order  issued  in  his favour  by  the petitioner-bank to the officer of the  State Bank  of  India  Tadepalligudem Branch.  The pay  order  was cleared  on  the  same  day  and the  State  Bank  of  India deposited  the proceeds after encashment in the Civil  Court Deposit  Account  of the Subordinate Court,  Tadepalligudem. On  the  same day, the Subordinate Judge issued a cheque  on the  said  current account for a sum of Rs.  16,  30,619.18p with  the direction to the State Bank to keep the amount  in term  deposit receipt for a period of 15 days and the  State Bank  of  India  complied with the direction.   As  to  what transpired after this is best stated in the language used by the  Law  Officer  of the petitioner-bank in  his  affidavit affirmed  on  1st  January  1986   :   On  30.12.1985   the Sub-Judge,  came to the Bench at 10.30 A.M.  and  pronounced the  orders in all Execution Applications at 10.45 A.M.  No. allowed  E.A.207/85  and thus reviewed the orders passed  in E.A.   363/84  and  dismissed E.A.  363/84  E.A.196/85  E.A. 197/85  but allowed E.A.199/85 granting interest only at  6% while  rejecting  E.A.198  and   200/85.   Immediately   our Advocate  presented  a cheque petition with an out of  order petition after due notice to the Advocate of Vijay Transport at  about  10.50 a.m.  In the said petition, we stated  that the  bank  is entitled for the amount of the orders  on  the E.As.  The learned Subordinate Judge got down from the Bench after  call work at about 11.25.  Suspecting that the  Judge is  prepared  to pay the amount to the Vijay  Transport  our Advocate  prepared  a stay petition at 1.30 p.m.  and  after notice  to  the respondents Advocate went to the  court  and sent  a word to the Sub-Judge about the said petition  which he  intended  to  file.  He was asked to wait in  the  Court hall.   Till  about  2.55 p.m.  there was no word  from  the Judge  and on the other hand the Advocate was informed  that the  Judge  and  bench  clerk (were)  discussing  about  the matter.   At about 2.55 p.m our Advocate repeatedly enquired with  the  court staff the reason for the delay.  At  3.p.m. on  the instructions of the Sub-Judge Execution Bench  clerk received the said petition from our advocate.  Meanwhile our advocates  clerk  also happened to see the cheque  petition filed  by  Vijay Transport lying on the table of  the  Bench clerk.

     9.   I  submit that no cheque petition  was  presented with  any out of order petition in the open court by any  of the  Advocates  of the Vijay Transport or party  person.   I also submit that no notice was issued either to us or to the Karnataka  Bank who has deposited Rs.16 lakhs on the  cheque petition.   The  Advocate  for the Vijay Transport  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

present  in  the court between 10.50 a.m.  to 4.15 p.m.   on 30.12.1985.  Our Advocate Mr.  Ch.S.  Kameswararao waited in the  hall till 4.10 p.m.  and he was informed that our  stay petitions and cheque petitions were dismissed since a cheque was  ordered  in  favour  of M/s  Vijay  Transport  in  E.A. 252/85.

     While  the  petitioner-banks representative was  kept waiting  by  the  Sub Judge, it is seen from  the  affidavit affirmed  on 7th February 1996 by the State Bank of India in the proceedings before us that:  On 30.12.1985, the learned Subordinate  Judge,  through  his letter  dated  30.12.1985, enclosing the said deposit receipt requested this respondent to   cancel  the  term   deposit  receipt  No.209215   dated 27.12.1985  and  adjust the same to the Civil Court  deposit challan No.  157 dated 30.12.1985.  Accordingly, it was done on  the  same date.  On 30.12.1985 itself, the  learned  Sub Judge  issued  a  Civil  Court   cheque  favouring  the  1st Respondent  for a sum of Rs.16,30,619=18.  It was  presented on  the same day.  Hence accordingly, this respondent  (i.e. the State Bank of India) debited Civil Court deposit account of  Sub Judge, Tadepalligudem, and credited the same to  the account  of  1st  respondent.   On the  same  day,  the  1st respondent  presented  a  cheque bearing No.   248178  dated 30.12.1985 for Rs.16,00,000=00 requesting this respondent to issue  a demand draft on its Guindy Branch, Madras in favour of  3rd  respondent on debiting commission to this  account. Towards the commission, he issued another cheque bearing No. 248180  dated  30.12.85  for   Rs.800=00.   Thereupon,  this respondent   (SBI)   issued   two   demand  drafts      for Rs.8,00,000=00  each  bearing  No.168997  and  168998  dated 30.12.1985  favouring  3rd respondent.  Another  cheque  was issued  bearing No.248179 dated 30.12.1985 for  Rs.25,000=00 demanding the respondent to pay cash.  Accordingly, cash was paid.

     The  petitioner-bank  challenged the order dated  30th December  1985 by way of a Civil Revision Petition.  A  stay application  was moved at the residence of the Judge of  the High  Court and an interim order was passed at 9.35 a.m.  on 2nd  January  1996  restraining  the State  Bank  of  India, Tadepalligudem Branch from paying the sum of Rs.16,30,619.18 p  to  the respondents and also restraining the  respondents from  withdrawing  the amount from the State Bank of  India, Tadepalligudem  or their order pending further orders on the petition.  This order was communicated by a Telex message to the  State Bank of India.  But the respondents withdrew  the amount  on 30th December, 1985 itself and the interim  order of  injunction was successfully thwarted by the respondents. The  High  Court  directed proceedings to be  initiated  for recovery of the amount from respondent No.  1 and thereafter payment  of the money to the petitioner-bank.  Despite  this order,  the  respondents did not repay the amount.   On  3rd March  1986,  this Court in the petitioners pending  appeal directed the sale of vehicles which had been hypothecated by respondent  No.  1 to the petitioner-bank.  No vehicles were handed over by the respondent No.  1 to the petitioner-bank. On  22nd  September 1986, the following order was passed  by this  Court in the appeal filed by respondents:  Shri  U.R. Lalit,  learned counsel for appellants M/s Vijay Transport & Ors.  states that the amount of Rupees sixteen lakhs and odd will  be deposited with Bank of India, respondent No.  1  on or  before  30th  November  1986.   If  the  amount  is  not deposited within the aforesaid period this appeal will stand dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

     Needless  to say, the amount was not deposited.   This is recorded in this Courts order dated 9th December 1986 in the  following  words:   Since  the  amount  has  not  been deposited  as  ordered  by  this Court,  the  appeal  stands dismissed  in  terms of the order dated the  22nd  September 1986.  The appeal is dismissed.

     On  11th  November 1987, the petitioner-banks  appeal from  the  judgment and order of the High Court  dated  20th September  1983 was allowed and the bank was given the right to  recover  the entire amount decreed without  any  scaling down  under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938.  The petitioner-bank was, therefore, in  a  situation where the claim filed by them in  1975  was ultimately  decreed in 1987.  But in the process it had  not only  not recovered any amount from the judgment debtor, but on  the  other  hand,  because of the  machinations  of  the respondents,  it had been deprived of a further sum of  over Rs.16 lakhs which had been deposited by it in the custody of the  Court.  The application filed by petitioner-bank before the  High  Court for direction to the respondents  including the  State  Bank of India, Tadepalligudem Branch to  deposit the  amount  within a week was rejected by the  order  dated 18th  October 1998.  The petitioner- bank impugned the order of  refusal  of  the High Court before this  Court  on  18th October  1989.  Affidavits were filed.  It was during  these proceedings  that  this Court issued the suo motu notice  to the respondent No.  2 on 29th April 1998 as under:  We have heard  learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for  2nd  respondent.  Quite apart from whether or  not  the appellant  succeeds  in this civil appeal, the facts of  the civil  appeal reveal a prima facie case of contempt of court in  that there appears to have been flagrant disobedience by the  2nd  respondent of court orders and dealings by her  in monies  which were custodia legis.  This court cannot turn a blind eye to such conduct.

     Issue  suo moto contempt notice to the 2nd  respondent returnable in August 1998.  The Civil Appeal is adjourned to be placed on board along with the contempt notice.

     The respondent No.  2 appeared in Court on 12th August 1998  pursuant  to the notice.  As recorded in this  Courts order:   Mr.   Ganguli,  learned  counsel  for  the  second respondent  states that the second respondent is present  in Court  and has instructed him to state that the sum of Rs.16 lacs  shall be deposited by her in Court within eight  weeks without prejudice to all other rights and contentions.

     To  enable the second respondent to make the  deposit, the appeal is adjourned for eight weeks

     Despite the express assurance given to and acted on by the  Court,  the amount was not deposited.  When the  matter came  up after eight weeks the respondent No.2 asked for  an opportunity  to  file an answer to the suo motu notice.   In her  answer  to  the notice, the respondent No.  2  for  the first time made out, what has subsequently transpired to be, a  wholly  sham  dispute with the respondent  No.   3.   She placed  the  blame  for  non-deposit of  the  money  on  her husband,  respondent No.  3, from whom she said she had been living  separately with her son since the last few  years. She  feigned ignorance of the position as far as assets  and liabilities  of  respondent No.  1 were concerned.   Without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

going  into  the  question of the actuality of  the  alleged dispute between the respondent No.  2 and 3, on 3rd December 1998  this  Court  issued a suo motu notice of  contempt  to respondent  No.  3 for the same reasons.  The respondent No. 2  was directed by this Court to hand over the draft of Rs.6 lakhs  which  she said was with her to the Registrar of  the Supreme  Court.   The  Court  also  recorded:   Learned counsel,  on instructions, undertakes to Court that the  2nd respondent  shall  deposit in Court a further sum  of  Rs.10 lakhs within six months, without prejudice to all her rights and  contentions.  The sum of Rs.10 lakhs shall be deposited in  two instalments of Rs.  5 lakhs each, the first  deposit to be made on or before 10.3.1999.. The undertaking was not  complied  with  and  on 24th March 1999,  the  time  to deposit  Rs.  5 lakhs was extended till 3rd June 1999.  This order  was  also not complied with.  On 10th June 1999,  the respondent  No.   2  came  forward   with  two  bank  drafts totalling  Rs.3,50,000/- only.  This amount was directed  to be  deposited  by 11th August 1999.  Allowing the prayer  of the  counsel for respondent No.  2, the balance was directed to  be  paid  within  six weeks.  This order  was  also  not complied  with within the time specified and ultimately  the amount  of  Rs.16 lakhs was deposited by 22nd October  1999. On  27th  October  1999,  the second  and  third  respondent submitted  that  the  amount  of Rs.   16  lakhs  should  be adjusted  against the decretal claim of the  petitioner-bank and  that they should be given an opportunity to settle  the dispute  between  the parties.  The matter  was  accordingly adjourned.   There was no settlement nor did the respondents appear  on  the  adjourned  date.  Both  of  them  sent  fax messages  stating  that they were ill.  By our  order  dated 24th  November 1999 we directed non-bailable warrants to  be issued.   The  respondents appeared before the Court on  the returnable  date, i.e., 14th December 1999, and again stated that  they  wished to settle the matter.  On  15th  February 2000,  the  respondents  made  an  unconditional  offer  of settlement  through their counsel.  The respondents offered to  pay the decretal amount and interest @ 12% p.a.  in four equal  instalments.  The first instalment (approximately  of Rs.19 lakhs) was to be paid on or before 15th March 2000 and the  subsequent  three  instalments on or before  15th  June 2000, 15th September 2000 and 15th December 2000.  The Court recorded  this  as  well as the further  submission  of  the respondents:   Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and  3 states  that land outside Chennai belonging to respondents 2 and 3 has been mortgaged to the appellant as security in the transaction  in  appeal and that land shall be security  for payment of the said amount in the manner aforestated."

     It  was made clear that the payment agreed to be  made was   exclusive  of  the  sum   already  obtained   by   the petitioner-bank,  namely Rs.16,92,977/- and that regardless of  whether  or  not the appellant has communicated  to  the respondents  its  willingness  to  accept  this  offer,  the respondent  shall  deposit  in this court the sum  of  Rs.19 lakhs  on or before 15th March 2000, which, if the offer  is accepted,  will  be  credited towards the  first  instalment payable  to the appellant. Neither of the respondents  have deposited the amount of Rs.19 lakhs nor any amount at all in blatant   disregard   of  this   Courts  mandate  and   the respondents  resiled  from  their   unconditional  offer wholly.   From time to time, the matter appeared before this Court  and  it was adjourned to give the  respondents  every opportunity  to  comply  with  the  orders  of  this  Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Ultimately   both  the  respondents   filed   two   separate affidavits  which  were taken on file by this Court on  24th August  2000  in which they claimed that they had  immovable properties  situated  at  Chettiaragaram  Village,  Saidapet Taluk, Chengulpet District, bearing Survey Nos.  13, 14 & 15 which  could  be sold to meet the decretal claim.   However, the offer was that the sale should be made to a buyer of the respondents  choice.  Having regard to the past conduct  of the  respondents,  we  were  not   prepared  to  allow   the respondents  to  handle  the   private  sale  of  properties admittedly  mortgaged  to  the petitioner  bank.   Both  the respondents  then filed separate affidavits affirmed on 24th August  2000 stating that the land could be sold through the District  Judge subject to the approval of this Court.  When the  matter  was  again taken up, it was  submitted  by  the respondents  that  the  property was the subject  matter  of litigation  and was under the custody of a Receiver.  It now appears   that  a  suit  was   filed  in  1990  against  the respondents and their son by a third party alleging that the property  admittedly  mortgaged to the petitioner  had  been agreed to be sold to such third party and at the instance of these  respondents,  their son has been  appointed  receiver over  the  property.  It does not appear at what  stage  the suit  is.   There is no explanation why the respondents  did not  state this fact in the several affidavits filed  before this  Court.   As  it was clear that  the  respondents  were merely  prevaricating, we concluded hearing of the appeal of the  petitioner from the order of the High Court dated  18th October  1988 by which the High Court had refused to  direct the respondents to pay the Rs.16 lakhs by a fixed date.  The appeal  was  allowed by us and the amount of Rs.   16  lakhs deposited  by the respondent was allowed to be withdrawn  by the  petitioner.  It is in this background that the contempt proceeding  is  to  be decided.  We make it clear  that  the facts  relating  to  the  events   which  have  taken  place subsequent  to the issuance of the notices are not  material for  the purpose of conviction but are certainly relevant to the  question of sentence.  As noted at the outset, the acts of  contempt  alleged are ( i ) unauthorisedly dealing  with property  custodia legis and (ii) violating orders of Court. There  is and can be no doubt that either of these two  acts if  established  would tantamount to contempt.  Property  in custodia  legis  means  that  the property is  kept  in  the possession  and  under  the  protection  of  Court.   Monies deposited  in Court by way of security are held by the Court in  custodia  legis  to  the  credit of  the  party  who  is ultimately  successful.   Any other person dealing with  the account  so  deposited does so at his or her peril and  .. any litigative disturbance of the Courts possession without its permission amounts to contempt of its authority.. (per V.R.Krishna  Iyer,  J.   in Everest Coal  Company  Ltd.   V. State  of  Bihar & Ors.  1978 (1) SCC 12.  ) The  amount  of Rs.16  lakhs had been kept according to the directive of the High  Court  dated 28th December 1976 in the custody of  the Sub Judge, Eluru pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner-bank.   Therefore,  when the appeal was  allowed, the  amount  deposited by way of security should  have  been returned  to  the  petitioner-bank as a  matter  of  course. Restitution  of  the  deposit in the event  of  success  was implicit   in   the  order.   There   could  be   no   other interpretation  of  the  order  of the High  Court  of  28th December  1976.   In  fact, when the  petitioners  revision application  against  the  Sub   Judges  order  dated  30th December  1985  was ultimately allowed by the High Court  on 27th  April  1998,  it  was said, The  lower  Court  having

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

allowed  the  revision petition and dismantling thereby  the order  of  restitution, strangely allowed the amount,  which was  deposited  by  the Karnataka Bank to  be  withdrawn  by respondents  1 to 3, which in my undoubted view resulted  in an  act of grave error.  We need only add that the  error was  committed  at the instance of the respondents, and  the gravity  was  enhanced by the action of the  respondents  in appropriating  the  amount  unconditionally.    It  is   not sufficient  for  the respondent to set up the order  of  the Subordinate  Judge, Tadepalligudem as a shield.  A  judicial proceeding  which  is  otherwise permissible may  become  an engine  of fraud.  Thus in Advocate General, State of  Bihar V.  Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd.  1980 (2) SCR 1175, it  was held that the filing of an application may amount to an abuse of process.  In that case, the respondents obtained interim  orders from a Single Judge which had the effect  of circumventing and nullifying the effect of the orders of the Division  Bench  of that High Court.  This Court said,  The Court  must  take  into  account the  whole  course  of  the continuing  contumacious conduct of the respondents from the beginning  of the game. It was concluded that the conduct of  the respondents clearly showed that they were  intending to  and had obstructed the due course of the  administrative of  justice  by abusing the process of Court.  In  the  case before  us,  the  petitioner-bank   anticipating  that   the respondents would get payment of the amount had, immediately after  the  order  was  passed  by  the  Subordinate  Judge, Tadepalligudem on 30th December 1985, filed a complaint with the  Registrar,  District Court, Eluru requesting  immediate intervention.  The complaint was not and indeed could not be acted  upon  by  the  Registry.  On  7th  January  1986  the petitioner-bank  lodged  a complaint about  the  Subordinate Judge,  Tadepalligudem  with the District Judge, Eluru.   We have  been  informed  that after an inquiry  was  held,  the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem was dismissed from service in  1986.   But  the damage had been done.  With  a  cynical disregard  for  the  administration of justice   for  which purpose  alone  Courts  exist   the  respondents  used  the process  of  the law to defeat that very purpose.  No  doubt the  jurisdiction  that  the  Court exercises  in  cases  of alleged  contempt  is quasi-criminal and the Court  must  be satisfied  on the material before it that contempt of  court was in fact committed.  But that satisfaction may be derived from  the  circumstances  of the case.  [  See:   Ram  Avtar Shukla  V.   Arvind  Shukla  1995 Suppl (2) SCC  130  ]  The circumstances  obtaining  in  this case leave no  manner  of doubt that the respondents have wilfully dealt with property which  was custodia legis.  From the outcome of the  inquiry against  the  Sub  Judge,  it is clear that  the  order  was tainted  and  the  dishonesty  of  the  respondents  patent. Furthermore,  the rush with which the matters were concluded and  the  monies  withdrawn  by the  respondents  speak  for itself.  That this was done in furtherance of a plan to reap an illegal benefit is evidenced by the fact that even though the respondents had not filed any application for payment to them  of Rs.16 lakhs, anticipating the order that they would obtain,  the  respondents opened the current account in  the State  Bank of India, Tadepalligudem four days prior to  the passing  of  the order dated 30th December 1985.   That  the account  was opened in the same Branch of the Bank in  which the  Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem had an account,  that the  petitioner-  banks  representative was not  given  any notice  of the respondents cheque petition before the  Sub Judge,  and  that the cheque was cleared and the money  paid out  to  the respondents while the petitioners petition  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

objection  was filed, are all circumstances pointing to  the careful   pre-planning    involved.     Significantly,   the respondents have not been able to show us on what basis they received  the money.  Their counter claims had been rejected by  the  High Court.  In the appeal preferred from the  High Courts decision, the respondents had not been successful in obtaining  any  stay.   All these factors lead only  to  one inference  and that is, that the Respondents wilfully  dealt with monies in the possession of the Court without authority of  law.   We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding  the respondents  guilty  of  the first charge.  As  far  as  the question of disobedience to orders of Court is concerned, in his   order   dated  30th   December  1985,  rejecting   the application  of  the  petitioner-bank for payment  of  Rs.16 lakhs  on  the ground that it was not under the  appropriate Section,  the Subordinate Judge said:  Money cannot lie  in the  Court without any specific order or contingency.  Then, the  question arose to whom the money should go?  Since, the petitions  are dismissed, the Bank of India is not  entitled to the amount.  Karnataka Bank (D-6) is a third party to the suit  and  the Court can not pay money to him.  The  Honble High  Court in L.P.A.  Nos.  178/76 and 185/76 held that the money  should  be paid only to defendant No.  1 i.e.   Vijay Transport  and  no body else against proper  bank  guarantee furnished  by Vijay Transport.  Vijay Transport has  already furnished bank joint guarantee of Karnataka Bank Ltd.  which was accepted by the Court and it should be kept in force and valid.  Therefore, the only way left to this Court is to pay money  to Vijay Transport in accordance to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in A.P.  As.  Therefore, the money of Rs.16,00,000/-  with interest accrued there for which in the Courts  deposit is to be ordered to pay to Vijay  Transport (R-1) in this case.

     The  respondents  were aware of the order of the  High Court dated 28th December, 1976 which allowed the respondent No.   1 to withdraw the money only against a bank  guarantee for  the  same amount.  They knew that there was in fact  no subsisting bank guarantee furnished by the respondent No.  1 yet   the  respondent  No.   1  withdrew  the  amount.   The withdrawal was in violation of the order dated 28th December 1976.   Having  got the amount of Rs.16 lakhs to which  they were  and  could  not,  in any view of the  law,  have  been entitled  to,  the  respondents enjoyed the benefit  of  the amount  for  about  15 years despite orders passed  by  this Court on 22nd September 1986 and 12th August 1998 and it was not  until  this  Court initiated  proceedings  in  contempt against  the  respondents that the money was  reimbursed  in driblets  by the respondents.  The respondents are therefore guilty  on this count also.  We now come to the question  of sentence.   In  Dhananjay  Sharma V.  State of  Haryana  and Others  1995 (3) SCC 757, it was said that:  The stream  of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity  must  be  dealt  with sternly so  that  the  message percolates  loud  and clear that no one can be permitted  to undermine  the  dignity of the Court and interfere with  the due  course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice.

     It  is  apparent from the facts already narrated  that both  the  respondents have polluted the stream of  justice. The respondents have continued with the contumacious conduct with  impunity  even  after the issuance of the  notices  to them.   In  the  narration of facts the phrase   order  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

complied  with has recurred with disturbing regularity.  In addition  the  unconditional offer made was resiled  from; the   undertaking   given  to   the  Court   was   breached; adjournments  were  obtained on the basis of  assurances  of payment  and  settlement  which  they had  no  intention  to fulfil.   The alleged dispute between the respondent Nos.  2 and 3 was a red herring and an attempt to wriggle out of the undertaking  given  to  Court .  In  the  respondent  No.2s affidavit in answer to the notice of contempt, she said:

     I  was  under  a  bonafide belief  that  I  would  be Supported  by my husband ( the third respondent in the above Civil  Appeal) and expected to seek the assistance of my son in  my  endeavour.   I  was  let  down  by  my  husband  who repeatedly  kept telling me that he was taking the necessary efforts  without  actually  doing  so.  As  for  my  son  he expressed   his   inability  to  be   of   any   assistance, particularly  in view of the pending litigation between  him and  his  father.   It was only at the last  moment  that  I realised  that  I was being let down and would not be  in  a position  to fulfill my commitment to this Honble Court.  I was also unable to convey this to my counsel sufficiently in advance,  disabling  me  from filing an  affidavit  in  this regard.

     The  statements are ex-facie contradictory.  If  there were  a  dispute  for  the  last  few  years  between  the respondent  No.2  and respondent No.3, the  respondent  no.2 could  not have been under a bona-fide belief that she would be supported by the respondent No.3.  Also no particulars of the  alleged litigation between the respondent No.3 and  the son  have  been  given at any stage.   The  only  litigation referred  to  before us was a suit for specific  performance filed  by  a  third party against both the  respondents  and their  son.  It is clear that the undertaking to this  Court was  lightly  given  by respondent No.2  and  breached  with impunity.   In  any  event, on the respondents  own  showing there  was  no  dispute  between them either  when  the  non compliance  of  orders  of  Court took  place  or  when  the property  of  the  Court  was wrongly dealt  with  by  them. According to respondent No.3, he has acted all along as per the instructions of 2nd respondent and that the money which was  withdrawn  pursuant to the order dated  30th  December, 1985 had been kept by the respondent No.2 in a fixed deposit account  in the name of their son.  In order to bolster this case,  the  respondent No.3 sought to rely upon the  alleged public notices published by his son against him and ex-parte injunctions  obtained  by his son against his  company.   No particulars  of  the news papers or their dates nor  of  the injunction  order have been given.  Although, the  documents are  said to be annexed to the affidavit of respondent No.3, there  are in fact no such annexures.  The respondents  have all  along  acted  in concert.  They had been  filing  joint affidavits  before this Court till the notices to show cause were  issued.  Significantly the Power of Attorney  executed by  respondent  No.2  in  favour   of  respondent  No.3  has admittedly  not  been revoked till today.  It is clear  from all  these  facts that the respondents have  compounded  the contumacious  conduct  with  which they  were  charged  with further  acts of contumacy.  Their alleged esteem for this Court  and  the sincerity of their apology are falsified  by their  unrepentant  behaviour.   Given  the  nature  of  the contempt,  punishment in the nature of a fine is not enough. We  have  therefore  no hesitation in  sentencing  both  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

respondents  to imprisonment in addition to payment of fine. Both  of  the respondents shall undergo simple  imprisonment for  two  months in addition to making payment of a fine  of Rs.2,000/-  each.  The fine is to be paid within a period of two  weeks  from the date of this judgment.  In default  the defaulting  respondent  will  undergo a  further  period  of simple imprisonment for a period of one month.