G.M. LODHA, J.—M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd., Delhi and Another have filed this application dated 7-7-79 under section 148 and 151 C. P. C. for revising the stay order of this Court dated 17-4-79, in view of the order of the Honble Supreme Court passed while rejecting the Special Leave petition on 21-6-79. 2. Honble Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak, Vacation Judge of the Supreme Court in Special Leave petition No. 5153/79 gave the following order: "The Special Leave Petition is rejected, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the High Court and show that the conditions mentioned in the conditional stay order are too rigorous for compliance and that the circumstances that the petitioner owns assets of sufficient value should be taken into consideration. In case the High Court is disposed to varying the conditional stay order, it will be of course open to it, to extend the time for compliance with the fresh order which it makes now." 3. In order to show that the conditional stay order passed by this Court earlier is too rigorous for compliance and the circumstance that the petitioner owns assets of sufficient value should be taken into consideration, the petitioner has made the following relevant averments in the petition: "2. That on receipt of this order the petitioner has been trying to obtain Bank Guarantee for Rs. one Crore and a person who can stand surety for the balance amount viz;, Rs. 4,57,08,761-61. The petitioners are finding difficulty in complying with these two conditions of the order. 3. That the petitioner has already given Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 3.59 Crores in pursuance of the order passed by the Honble Justice C. M. Lodha on 10-5-76 in Civil Writ No. 628 of 1976 for payment subsequent to the passing of the Electricity (Supply) (Rajasthan) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 now an Act and has to give fresh Bank Guarantee for about 13 lakhs every month. 4. That the petitioner-Companys Unit at Kota employs about 1500 employees. 5. That if electric connection is disconnected in pursuance of the order passed by this Court so many persons will be unemployed and the Company will also suffer heavy losses. Further the unemployment of such large number of persons will create law and order situation in Kota area which is already tense. 6. That the Company produce basic Chemicals viz. 5. That if electric connection is disconnected in pursuance of the order passed by this Court so many persons will be unemployed and the Company will also suffer heavy losses. Further the unemployment of such large number of persons will create law and order situation in Kota area which is already tense. 6. That the Company produce basic Chemicals viz. Caustic Soda, Calcium Carbide, Poly Vinyl Chloride which are in great demand in the market and non-production of the said materials by the Company will create shortage in the market and other consequent products will also suffer. 7. That unencumbered assets of Shri Ram Chemical Unit at Kota are to the tune of Rs. 22.89 Crores. The total assets of the Company Messrs; Delhi Cloth & General Mills are much more than the figures stated above. 8. That the Company is prepared to give an undertaking in whatever terms the Court may order that it will not transfer its fixed assets to the tune of Rs. 4,57,08,761.61. 14. That both cases are likely to be decided in the month of August and Companys amount are not going to be deposited in any way so as to make difficult for the R. S. E. B., to recover the amount. 15. That in view of the facts stated above it is desirable that the order should be modified and time extended. 16. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to modify the aforesaid conditions and extend the time for complying with the order dated 17-4-1979." 4. This application is accompanied by affidevit of Shri S. S. Bhargava, Administrative Manager of the Company Unit known as Shriram Chemical Industries at Kota. 5. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply to the above application on 10-7-79. In the reply, the respondent vehemently contested the application for modification for the earlier stay order and submitted that the petitioner wants the case to be heard before complying with the Courts order so that in case the petition is decided against him, no compliance of the order would be necessary. 6. The relevant averments in the reply are as under:— "3. That the petitioner is not producing, despite demand made in open court, the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the Company since 1966, which would reveal that the Company had made a provision. 6. The relevant averments in the reply are as under:— "3. That the petitioner is not producing, despite demand made in open court, the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the Company since 1966, which would reveal that the Company had made a provision. It is submitted that withholding of these balance-sheets, despite demand, should be construed adversely and this Honble Court should be pleased to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner that if the profit and loss account and the balance sheets of the company since 1966 were produced, they would reveal that there was a provision in them for making payment of the dues. 4. That the petitioner had all along been theatening that the labour will go out of employment if the factory is closed. This does not give the petitioner a license to draw electricity without paying proper charges. It is submitted that the petitioner must pay for the bills according to the rates of the tariff as all other industries are paying. 5. That if the assets of the petitioner is more than 23 Crores, it should not be difficult for him to furnish the Bank Guarantee for a crore of rupees and find out a solvent surety for about 5 crores of rupees. In fact the petitioner has not made any effort in that direction and has not given in his affidavit as to what effort he has made in this direction. The only effort of the petitioner is to have the case decided before furnishing the Bank guarantee, surety and the undertaking so as to leave the Board in difficulty is dismissed. On the other hand, the Board desires, and rightly so, that before the petition is heard the Bank Guarantee, surety and undertaking are given, so that soon after the petition is dismissed, the Board may have no difficulty in realising the dues which can be done by operating the Bank Guarantee and by trapping the persons who stand as sureties. 7. That the petitioner is already with holding a huge amount from paying it to the Board and which would have been utilised by the Board for extension purposes. This Honble Court had already been lenient to the petitioner in not asking it to pay at least half of the dues and secure the rest by Bank guarantee, as is normally expected. This Honble Court had already been lenient to the petitioner in not asking it to pay at least half of the dues and secure the rest by Bank guarantee, as is normally expected. Instead of the normal order generally made by this Honble Court, this Honble Court only ordered the petitioner to give Bank guarantee for only a crore of rupees and furnish surety for the rest of the amount. The petitioner has not given any explanation for not-complying with the Courts order in sub-paras (b) and (c) of para 1 of his application. The petitioner has not come with clean hands and this application is moved with the sole purpose of getting the case decided before complying with the Courts order, so that the Board may not be able to realised its dues from the petitioner." 7. In affidavit of re-joinder shri S. S. Bhargava, Administrative Manager of the petitioner-Company at Kota controverted the allegations of the Electricity Board and asserted that the Company is willing to give undertaking for payment of principle amount with interest @ 9% and also to the publication of the liability in annual reports. It was also asserted that the Company negotiated with the Punjab National Bank and Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.. for the Bank Guarantee of Rs. One Crore but the negotiations have not resulted in anything concrete so far. For solvent surety, the Company explored the possibility of persuading other Joint Stock Companies of the same group. The discussions took place and legal opinion sought, but advice received was that it was not desirable. The company is willing to give surety in the form of a undertaking. Alongwith this affidavit dated 10-7-79, a draft of undertaking was also produced which reads as under:— "DRAFT: The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd., having its registered office at Bara Hindu Rao Delhi, solemnly states to this Honble Court that it has un-encumbered fixed assets of the value of more than Rs 22 Crores in its Kota Unit known as Shriram Chemical Industries. The Company hereby gives an undertaking to this Honble Court that out of the aforesaid assests the Company shall not part with possession of or alienate or encumber the assets of the value of Rs. Six Crores till the final disposal of the writ petition herein. Signed this day of July, 1979 at Jaipur. The Company hereby gives an undertaking to this Honble Court that out of the aforesaid assests the Company shall not part with possession of or alienate or encumber the assets of the value of Rs. Six Crores till the final disposal of the writ petition herein. Signed this day of July, 1979 at Jaipur. SIGNATURE OF THE PETITIONER THROUGH ITS COUNSEL." 8. The arguments were heard and the case was adjourned earlier on 10th and 11th July, 1979 as a joint request was made that further time may be given to consider the matter and to submit complete arguments. On 21-7-79 the arguments were then completed and during the course of arguments, Mr. Mridul submitted a draft of written undertaking which reads as under :— "Mr. Mridul on behalf of the petitioner states that his clients are willing to give the following undertaking to the Court : "The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd., having its registered office at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, solemnly states to this Honble Court that it has un-encumbered fixed assets of the value of more than Rs. 22 Crores in its Kota Unit known as Shri Ram Chemical Industries. The Company hereby gives an undertaking to this Honble Court that out of the aforesaid assets the Company shall not part with possession of or alienate or encumber the assets of the value of Rs. 5 Crores till the final disposal of the writ petition herein. Mr. Mridul further states that his clients have no objection that while accepting the aforesaid undertaking this Honble Court may in its order provide that in view of the said undertaking a floating charge to the extent of Rs. 5 Crores is created in favour of the respondent Electricity Board to secure the repayment of the dues of the said Board. Mr. Mridul further states that his clients have no objection and are willing to give a further undertaking to this Honble Court in the following words :— "The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., gives an undertaking to this Honble Court that if the claim of the respondent Board under their bill for Rs. Mr. Mridul further states that his clients have no objection and are willing to give a further undertaking to this Honble Court in the following words :— "The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., gives an undertaking to this Honble Court that if the claim of the respondent Board under their bill for Rs. 5,57,10,659.69 is ultimately upheld in the present writ petitions proceedings or is otherwise established by due process of law then the petitioners would have no objection and give an undertaking to this Honble Court to the effect that the respondent Board would be entitled to recover the amount of the bill to the extent affirmed or established as aforesaid by enforcing the aforesaid charge as if this order made by this Honble Court were an executable order for payment and enforcement of the charge." 9. Mr. H.P. Gupta learned counsel for the Board objected to above submission of this undertakings in the form of the draft at this stage without there being any order of the court for the same, and also termed it as against professional ethics. This generated avoidable heat in the arguments and Mr. Mridul took serious exception to teaching of ethics to him. The principle arguments were diverted from merits of the case to the professional ethics of advocates both senior advocates accusing each other which created very unpleasant situation. It was with great difficulty that I could persuade them to avoid display of tampers and argue the merits only. It would have been better, if both the learned counsel would have avoided such unpleasant altercations and concentrated on the merits of the matter by having a detached and objective approach, as is expected from the learned members of the Bar. 10. I have considered the respective submissions both oral and written of the parties and also carefully considered implications of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. Even though Mr. Guptas submission is that Honble Supreme Courts directions regarding re-consideration on certain conditions are only customary conventional words and they never mean re-opening of the issues regarding the stay order. I am not prepared to spell out such a superficial implication of it so as to make them meaning-less and unpurposeful. It should not be forgotten that every word of Honble the Supreme Court has to be given its due respect and highest importance, as Arts. I am not prepared to spell out such a superficial implication of it so as to make them meaning-less and unpurposeful. It should not be forgotten that every word of Honble the Supreme Court has to be given its due respect and highest importance, as Arts. 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141 and 142 of the Constitution read with Art. 143 and 144 of the Constitution contained in Chapter IV put it beyond doubt that they are to be kept at the highest pedestal not only for judiciary but for all citizens and functionaries of all the three wings of the State namely Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. 11. Even before coming into force of the Constitution of India sec. 212 of the Government of India Act, 1935 made the law declared by the Federal Court and the Privy Council, binding on all courts in British India. 12. Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court, binding on all Courts in India and even independently of Art. 141, the same result would have followed from the theory of precedents, which have become a part of India Law. Since the question of interpretation of Art. 141 hardly arises in this case, I would not enter into any more discussion about it, but I would hasten to add that whatever I have said above, is subject to weighty observations of Honble Jagannadha Das J. In Bengal Immunity case wherein His Lordships cited the following passage from Frankfurter J.— "Judicial exequies is unavoidable with reference to an organic act like our Constitution, drawn in many particulars with purposed vagueness so as to leave room for the unfolding future. But the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it". 13. The above, was cited according to the learned author Mr. Seervai, as per his comments in his treatise on Constitution, to indicate that the touchstone of constitutionality in India, as in the United States is the Constitution. 14. But the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it". 13. The above, was cited according to the learned author Mr. Seervai, as per his comments in his treatise on Constitution, to indicate that the touchstone of constitutionality in India, as in the United States is the Constitution. 14. Be that as it may, so far as the present controversy is concerned, I am of the view that Honble the Supreme Courts order dated 21-6-79 certainly implies the earlier stay order passed by me should be modified in case I am convinced the condition mentioned therein are too rigorous for compliance and that circumstances that the petitioner owns assets and sufficient value requires consideration. 15. Having come to the above conclusion, it is to be first seen whether the earlier order is too rigorous for compliance. The petitioners application and affidavit show that they have got huge assets at Kota itself and inspite of that they could not arrange for surety for the balance of demand and furnish a Bank guarantee of One Crore. It is true that the averments in the application and the affidavit only show that all that has been said is that the petitioners are finding difficulty in complying with these two above orders as they have given bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 3-59 Crores in the another writ application No. 628/76 and has to give fresh bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 13 lakhs every month in that case. Further even in the affidavit which was filed later on the petitioner only submits that the Company negotiated with Punjab National Bank and Bank of Rajasthan and negotiations of the Company have not resulted in anything concrete so far. The above averments are not sufficient to show that the condition of submission of Bank guarantee of one Crore is too rigorous for compliance. Since the amount involved is more than 5 Crores and the petitioner according to his own showings has got fixed assets for more than 22 crores in its Kota Unit known as Shri Ram Chemical Industries, there should be no difficulty for the petitioner to arrange for a bank guarantee of Rs. One Crore. Since the amount involved is more than 5 Crores and the petitioner according to his own showings has got fixed assets for more than 22 crores in its Kota Unit known as Shri Ram Chemical Industries, there should be no difficulty for the petitioner to arrange for a bank guarantee of Rs. One Crore. It has not been asserted that the bank refused to give bank guarantee and what has been said that nothing concrete have come out of the negotiations of the Bank so far. This averment according to me is grossly insufficient and most perfunctory and superficial in nature for showing that the condition of bank guarantee of Rs. One Crore is impossible for compliance. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Mr. H. P. Gupta that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for modification or revision of the order regarding furnishing of the bank guarantee. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner also was fair enough to concede to this and he candidly conceded ultimately that the prayer for modification of the earlier order by retaxing the requirement bank guarantee cannot be pressed too much. 16. The result is that so far as the condition for furnishing a bank guarantee in my earlier order is concerned, it would remain as it is, and the application is rejected to that extent. 17. So far as the other condition contained in clause b regarding giving of an undertaking for payment of interest® 9%, clause c for notifying the liability are concerned. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly and fairly conceded that they require no modification and revision, and they can be maintained as they are in the original order. 18. The crucial controversy between the parties is on the point of furnishing solvent surety for the balance of the demand which remains after furnishing bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. One Crore. This amount is Rs. 4,57,08,761-61, roughly four and half Crores. Mr. Mriduls submission is that since his client is limited company, it is not possible to furnish surety. They are prepared to create a charge on the fixed assets of the company to the extent of the liability by submitting of undertaking. Mr. One Crore. This amount is Rs. 4,57,08,761-61, roughly four and half Crores. Mr. Mriduls submission is that since his client is limited company, it is not possible to furnish surety. They are prepared to create a charge on the fixed assets of the company to the extent of the liability by submitting of undertaking. Mr. H. P. Gupta learned counsel for the Board vehemently submitted that such an undertaking would be only a waste paper and the Court should not leave the Board "high and dry" under the garb of accepting such undertakings. This became subject matter of a heated controversy between the parties. Although I have heard the learned counsel at length, on the question whether the undertaking can be treated as charge, I would not embark upon an authoritative adjudication on the question whether a charge can be created by an undertaking: at this stage in view of the order which I am proposing to pass in this case. 19. Since the amount involved is Rs. 4,57,08,761-61 and the company has not been able to arrange for personal surety, I am convinced that the earlier order passed in this respect should be modified in the interest of both the parties treating the condition of submission of surety as too rigorous condition, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. During the course of argument it was pointed out to me by Mr. Mridul that in Beni Chand vs. Kamla Kunwar, before Honble Supreme Court an undertaking was given by Mr. Tarkunde learned counsel for the respondent for payment of Rs. 80,000/- and on a further agreement by Mr. Tarkunde the Honble Court directed that this amount would be recoverable in execution of this judgment as if it was a decree in favour of each of them in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- since there were four persons who were entitled to get this amount each, the total amount of decree would come to Rs. 80,000/-. 21. Even after the above judgment was shown to the court, Mr. H. P. Gupta insisted that such an undertaking as is contemplated by Mr. Mridul, would be a waste paper only. 22. Mr. 20,000/- since there were four persons who were entitled to get this amount each, the total amount of decree would come to Rs. 80,000/-. 21. Even after the above judgment was shown to the court, Mr. H. P. Gupta insisted that such an undertaking as is contemplated by Mr. Mridul, would be a waste paper only. 22. Mr. Mridul while giving draft of the undertaking mentioned that though he would give undertaking in terms of judgment of Honble Supreme Court referred to above but there would be a rider that the amount recoverable should be subject to final judgment of this Honble Court or the Honble Supreme Court or some judicial forum. 23. I have given my careful consideration to the above controversy regarding the undertaking and the implications of it and I am not prepared to accept in toto the submissions of the either party on this crucial controversy in this case. Mr. Mriduls suggestion that even though writ may be rejected, amount of the demand notice should further have a scrutiny of some judicial forum before the guarantee, surety or undertaking can be enforced, cannot be accepted because it would really mean that the respondent Board will not be able to realise the amount of demand notice for which stay order was granted earlier after the judgment of this writ by this court or the appellate court. Similarly, the extreme submission of Mr. Gupta that inspite of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court referred to above, an undertaking would be a waste paper is only to be mentioned to be rejected. I have already mentioned earlier that in view of the high pedestal at which the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court is to be accepted in view of the scheme of Chapter IV of our Constitution it would be undermining the effect the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Beni-chand vs. Kamla Kunwar, if the undertaking is to be treated as a waste paper only. That being so, I can not accept extreme preposition canvassed by Mr. Gupta in this respect. 24. That being so, I can not accept extreme preposition canvassed by Mr. Gupta in this respect. 24. Taking a very fair and reasonable view in the matter, I am inclined to extend the condition No. a of my earlier order by providing certain alternative method by which the petitioner can assure this court of the realisation of the amount of demand notice from the petitioner in case the writ application is dismissed by this Honble Court, subject to final judgment of this Honble Court regarding the liability, in case this Court deems it proper to modify, amend or in any manner change the amount mentioned in the demand notice by any sort of reduction or alteration or otherwise. It would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to submit any security, in the form of a charge, or pledge or mortgage of the immovable property to the extent of the balance of demand of Rs. 4,57,08,761-61. The charge can be created by any method permissible in law. The mortgage can also be in the form of equitable mortgage or English mortgage i. e. mortgage by depositing of title deeds. 25. The application of the petitioner for revision and modification of the earlier order is partially accepted to this extent only. Since the earlier time allowed to the petitioner has expired, it would be fair and just to accept the prayer of the petitioner for extending time. 26. In order to avoid doubts, the modified and revised stay order would be as under:— (a) that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for the amount of one crore. (b) that for the balance of the demand of Rs. 4,57,08,761.61 np. 26. In order to avoid doubts, the modified and revised stay order would be as under:— (a) that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for the amount of one crore. (b) that for the balance of the demand of Rs. 4,57,08,761.61 np. the petitioner should submit either of the following: (i) solvent surety, or (ii) security by creating a charge or hypothecation or pledge or mortgage of the immovable property of the petitioner at Kota, (c) that the petitioner should also give a undertaking that in case writ application is rejected, they would pay interest @ 9% on the total amount of demand from the date of the bill upto the date of the payment, (d) that the petitioner should further undertake that they should notify this liability in all future annual reports of the Company, at a suitable place by putting a notice either below the profit and loss account or at any other place as may be convenient according to the principles of the Indian Companies Act and the accounting system, (e) that the above Bank guarantee, sureties or securities and/or undertakings as mentioned above in clause (a), (b), (c), & (d) should be submitted before the Additional Registrar of this Court at Jaipur within a period of one month from today, failing which the stay application would stand dismissed and the stay order passed by this Court on 17-4-79 as modified by this order would stand vacated. 27. This order should be read with order dated 17-4-79 and as a part of that order only; modifying the conditions to the extent, it has been done. 28. Liberty is given to both the parties to mention and obtain any order about the above at the time of final judgment of this writ application, so that this court can if necessary further clarify the implication of the liability of the petitioner. 29. The application, is, therefore, partially accepted. There would be no order as to costs.