IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.317 OF 2007

IN

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.2080 OF 2007

M.K.D. MINERAL & EXPORT(P) LTD. Appellant(s)

       Versus

B.C. DAGARA  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length.

This contempt petition is directed against the order passed by this

Court on 16th April, 2007 whereby the  Respondent-Contemnor has not shown any

deference of complying the aforesaid order.  Therefore, the petitioner herein has

approached this Court by filing the present contempt petition.  The order against

which the contempt petition is directed reads as under :-

“We modify the order passed by this Court dated 12.2.2007 and the

order passed by the High Court dated

-2-

22.12.2006 is restored subject to the condition that in case the respondent does

not lift the 30,000 MTs of iron ore per month then it will be open for the appellant

to sell it in the open market.  He will supply 30,000 MTs of iron ore per month on

the same terms and conditions as per the agreement and payment shall be made

by demand drafts.  This order shall be subject to the final order to be passed by

this Court.  We request the Arbitrator to dispose of the arbitral proceedings as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today.”   

But unfortunately, the respondent herein, despite the aforesaid order

did  not  comply this  order till  today.   In a reply to  contempt petition by the

respondent,  the respondent  took two stands;  one,  that the petitioner was not

having a trading licence and second, that the petitioner declined to accept the iron

ore as it said to be less than the required iron content.  It was only 35%  FE.

Therefore, he has not committed any contempt of this Court and he has faithfully

abide by this Court's order. In a  detailed affidavit filed by the respondent, he

tried to justify that he had at all the time tried to obtain a transit permit but he

could not secure the same on account

-3-

of petitioner not having a trading licence.  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit

submitted that throughout he had the trading licence except for a limited period

i.e. from December 7, 2007 to March, 2008 but for the rest of the period he always

had the trading licence.

Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent at a great length tried to  persuade that the respondent was in all

bonafide tried to comply with the order of this Court but for the reason beyond

his control he could not do so and in that connection, he took two aforesaid pleas.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that after this order was passed on 16th April, 2007 the respondent-

contemnor tried to avoid this order by moving one after the other applications for

modification but he did not succeed before this Court getting the order modified.

He also invited our attention to the order passed on 24th September, 2007 where

this Court expressed a great displeasure on the part of the respondent to make a

futile attempt to  seek modification order.   This  Court in its  order dated 24th

September,  2007 observed as under :-

“This  Court  had  earlier  passed  an  Order  dated  16.4.2007  after

hearing counsels for parties.  Thereafter

-4-

I.A.  No.1 was dismissed by the Court on 16.5.2007 after hearing counsel.  We

cannot appreciate this practice of filing I.A. after I.A. on the same matter after an

order was passed after hearing counsels for both parties.  It will be a review, or a

review  of  a  review,  which  should  not  be  encouraged.   I.A.  No.2  is  hence

dismissed.”

Dr.  Singhvi then pointed  out  that  he  had at  all  the  time trading

licence and the plea raised by the petitioner that he had no trading licence is false

and without any basis and he also pointed out that Respondent Contemnor moved

applications before the mining authorities for permission of supply of iron ore to

others with requisite percentage of 65%  iron  content.  Whenever the supply to

petitioner came, he tried to throw a stack of iron ore of 35% FE.   

We have bestowed our best of the consideration to lengthy arguments

by both the learned counsels,  but  we are constrained to say that the way the

present respondent has behaved is highly undesirable manner and in contemptous

manner.  He has shown great impunity to  defy the order of  this Court.   The

respondent was directed to supply 30,000 MTs. of iron ore on the payment by

bank draft but he for one reason or the other tried to avoid this Court's order

-5-

for a period of one year by making one application or the other and tried to scuttle

this Court's order. When he failed to get this Court's order modified he took up

another stand that the petitioner had no trading licence.  Ultimately, when the

matter came in for final disposal thereto also the respondent did not realise and

still he persisted in it and contested the matter to the best of his ability.  This

deliberate defiance of the respondent cannot be appreciated.  The Court passed

the order after hearing both the parties at length and thereafter he repeatedly

tried to get the order modified by filing interim applications which were rejected.

Then too also the message was not understood by the respondent.  This conduct

of the respondent does not warrant any sympathy.  This Court is very slow to take

harsh action but at the same time dignity of this Court does not permit that order

of this Court is defied with impunity.  If strong action is not taken against such

contemnor then people will lose faith and lay down bad precedent.  We hold him

guilty of contempt of this Court's Order and punish him to undergo three months

imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only).  He is given two

weeks time to surrender before the Superintendent of Police, Rairangpur,

-6-

District Baripada, Orissa.  In case he does not surrender within two weeks, the

Superintendent of Police shall get him arrested and send him to jail for serving

out the sentence.  He shall deposit the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in the Registry of this

Court  within  two  weeks  failing  which  he  will  have  to  further  undergo

imprisonment for a period of one month.   

We further direct that the Mining Engineer shall not permit him to

operate in the mines till he complies with the orders passed by this Court.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

              ....................J.         (A.K.MATHUR)             

                          .....................J.             (DALVEER BHANDARI)

New Delhi, July 16, 2008