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

PETITIONER: M/S. PACKRAFT (INDIA) PVT.LTD. THROUGHITS DIRECTER V.S. MANN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D.R.M. SETHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 304        JT 1995 (8)   405  1995 SCALE  (6)486

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Court  in Mahesh  Chandra v.  UPFC, [(1993)  2 SCC 279] has  laid down  the law  as to  how the properties of a defaulter  are   to  be   brought  to   sale  by   financial corporations. The  petitioner  contends  that  in  spite  of specific guidelines  laid down  therein, the property of the petitioner  had   not  been   sold  consistent   with  those guidelines. Therefore,  it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law  laid down  by this  Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves  liable for  conviction for  contempt of this Court.  We are  afraid that  we cannot  accede  to  the contention.      The law  laid down  by this  Court in  Mahesh Chandra’s case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that  everyone is bound by the law, But, if there is any infraction of  the action  in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial  review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.      Under these  circumstances, we  cannot  accede  to  the request made  by the  petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict  the respondents  for contempt. However, it would be  open  to  the  petitioner  to  seek  appropriate  remedy according to law.      The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.