Judgment R.M. Doshit, J.—This Application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been taken out by the State Government. It is the complaint of the State that the opponent-writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004 has willfully disobeyed the orders made on the said writ petition and has thus committed contempt of this Court. 2. It appears that on 31.03.2004 the sales tax officer, in exercise of power conferred by Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, ordered attachment of the goods (edible oil) worth Rs. 1 Crore belonging to the opponent. The said order of attachment made by the sales tax officer was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004. The said petition came up for hearing before the Bench comprising Messr. Justice M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia on 13.04.2004. Considering the fact that edible oil was a perishable commodity or atleast would deteriorate with the passage of time, in the interest of justice, the Bench made a conditional ad interim order to the effect that, “upon the petitioner filing an undertaking and furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 25 Lakhs, the respondents shall release 50% of the commodity, to be selected by the petitioner out of the commodity seized on 31.03.2004.” The Bench further observed that, “……The undertaking shall be to comply with the condition that after 50% commodity is so released in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall deposit with the Registry of this Court, within two weeks from the date of release of the commodity by the respondents, the price thereof which is presently estimated to be Rs. 50 lakhs.” 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order and the conditions mentioned therein, the opponent took out Civil Application No. 3089 of 2004. The opponent sought modification on the ground that the conditions mentioned in the above order dated 13.04.2004 were too harsh. As the opponent was unable to comply with the said conditions, the relief granted to him had become illusory. The opponent offered to give security in place of the bank guarantee. The opponent sought modification on the ground that the conditions mentioned in the above order dated 13.04.2004 were too harsh. As the opponent was unable to comply with the said conditions, the relief granted to him had become illusory. The opponent offered to give security in place of the bank guarantee. Pursuant to the said application, on 26.04.2004 the Bench made a further order modifying the above referred order of 13.04.2004 as under:— “Looking to the fact that the commodity in question is edible oil, which is perishable commodity or atleast would deteriorate with passage of time and looking to the financial hardships being pointed out and the modalities suggested, the following order is passed in the interest of justice to secure the dues of the Revenue:— [A] The Managing Director of the petitioner company shall file an undertaking on affidavit to the effect that— (i) the petitioner Company shall not sell, transfer or dispose of in any manner the immovable properties, plant and machinery of the petitioner-Company (the particulars of which shall be given in a duly attested statement alongwith the undertaking), without the express permission in writing of the respondent authorities; (ii) the petitioner-Company has not created any encumbrance on the aforesaid assets; (iii) the petitioner shall produce the valuation report of a Government approved valuer for its immovable properties, plant and machinery on or before 06.05.2004. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the authorities for completion of the sales tax assessment for the Assessment years 2000-2001 onwards. (v) Without two weeks from the date of release by the respondent authorities of the seized commodity, the petitioner shall deposit the sale price thereof with the respondents authorities, which deposit shall abide by the outcome of the assessment proceedings; and (vi) the petitioner shall always keep available with them 25% of the seized commodity estimated at Rs. 25 lakhs or commodity of equivalent value till the assessment proceedings are competed and the sales-tax and other dues determined in such proceedings are paid by the petitioner to the respondents. Upon filling of the undertaking as aforesaid:— (i) the respondent shall release the petitioner’s bank accounts from attachment, subject to the power of the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in future. Upon filling of the undertaking as aforesaid:— (i) the respondent shall release the petitioner’s bank accounts from attachment, subject to the power of the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in future. (ii) the respondent shall permit the petitioner to clear 25% of the seized commodity lying at Anand and within two weeks from the grant of such permission, the petitioner shall deposit the sale price thereof which, according to the petitioner, is of the value of Rs. 25 lakhs. (iii) after the petitioner deposits the price of the aforesaid 25% commodity, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to clear another 50% of the seized commodity i.e., the commodity lying at Anand subject to the same condition, that is, the petitioner shall deposit the sale price thereof which, according to the petitioner, is estimated to be about Rs. 50 lakhs with the respondent authorities within two weeks from the date of grant of such permission.” Thus, by the aforesaid order, the opponent was called upon, inter alia, to give an undertaking not to sell, transfer or dispose of the immovable properties, plant and machinery of the company and not to create any encumbrance over the said assets. 4. The opponent then moved a Note for Speaking to Minutes. The opponent sought modification on the ground that the immovable properties in question were already mortgaged with the Bank as co-lateral security in connection with the cash credit account. Thereupon, the Bench by Order dated 28.04.2004 modified the above referred order dated 26.04.2004. Clause (a) (ii) in Paragraph 2 of the Order dated 26.04.2004 stood modified as, “the petitioner-company shall not hereafter create any encumbrance on the aforesaid assets of the petitioner-company or on the property of Shri Rasikbhai Ishwarlal Patel, the Chairman of the petitioner-Company for which Shri Rasikbhai Ishwarlal Patel shall file a separate undertaking before this Court.” 5. Pursuant to the said order, the opponent gave following undertaking to this Court:— “3. I say that I, alongwith other co-owners, own immovable property of land bearing Survey No. 130/1/B, 131/2 (paiki) and 132/1 of village Sidhpur, District Mehsana. The details of the immovable property together with structure thereon alongwith the name of the co-owners are given in the Valuation Report made by M/s. R.B. Shah & Associates, Ahmedabad on 17.02.2004, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure “O” to the Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004. 4. The details of the immovable property together with structure thereon alongwith the name of the co-owners are given in the Valuation Report made by M/s. R.B. Shah & Associates, Ahmedabad on 17.02.2004, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure “O” to the Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004. 4. I say that the said property is absolutely unencumbered and the owners thereof are the absolute owners of the said property. I, on my behalf as well as on behalf of other co-owners undertake to this Hon’ble Court that no charge shall be created in respect of the said property during the course of the present proceedings.” 6. The above referred conditions imposed by Order dated 26.04.2004 came to be further modified by order dated 07.05.2004. The Bench comprising Messrs. M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ. recorded the submissions made on behalf of the opponent. The respondents-Sales Tax Officer was directed to permit the opponent to clear about 60 metric tonnes from out of the quantity lying at Anand. It was further directed, inter alia, “….As regards direction 2 (B)(iii), it is clarified that after the petitioner deposits the sale proceeds of 60 Mts as aforesaid, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to clear another 110 Mts. of the commodity lying at Anand or at another place, but the said permission shall also be subject to the same condition that within two weeks from the date of release of such commodity, the petitioner shall deposit the sale proceeds thereof with the respondent authorities. 7. As regards the deposit of the amounts and release of the attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts, since the petitioner will realize the sale proceeds from its purchasers by receiving the price of the goods by cheque/demand draft or cash, the same will have to be deposited with the petitioner’s bank i.e., Lord Krishna Bank Limited, Ahmedabad and the petitioner will thereafter deposit such sale proceeds with the respondent authorities as per the direction given by this Court. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondents shall have to permit the petitioner to operate the Bank accounts in order to enable the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid directions. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondents shall have to permit the petitioner to operate the Bank accounts in order to enable the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid directions. The respondents shall not create any impediment to this process even if any action is required to be taken against the petitioner in connection with some other transactions.” Thus, the direction that the opponent shall deposit the sale proceeds with the sales tax authorities came to be modified. Now, the opponent was allowed to deposit the sale proceeds in his bank account with Lord Krishna Bank and was directed to instruct Lord Krishna Bank to pay such amount to the sale tax authorities. It appears that pursuant to the above order, the goods in question were released, as directed, but the opponent did not pay the sale proceeds as directed. Instead, on 16.06.2004, he filed Civil Application No. 4645 of 2004 and sought extension of time for deposit of sale proceeds on specious ground that due to fall in the price of edible oil, he was not able to sell the goods at desired price; that he had suffered heavy loss and that 10 metric tonnes of goods was stolen from his premises at Chhatral. 8. Since then, on 06.08.2004, the Bench comprising Messrs. Justice M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta made the following Order on the said Civil Application No. 4645 of 2004. “Since the direction dated 26.04.2004 of this Court in the main petition, Clause (v) whereof requires the petitioner to deposit sale price of the seized commodity with the respondent authorities awaiting the outcome of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner shall instruct Lord Krishna Bank to pay over the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs to Respondent No. 1 by account payee bankers cheque. The time limit for the aforesaid purpose is therefore extended till 13.08.2004. The application accordingly stands disposed of.” 9. The State Government has produced a communication dated 19.08.2004 issued by the aforesaid Lord Krishna Bank disclosing that the properties offered by the opponent in security were mortgaged with the said Bank and that against the deposit of Rs. 75 Lakhs, the opponent had availed of over-draft facility to the extent of Rs. 59 lakhs. 10. It is the complaint of the applicants that the opponent having taken advantage of the aforesaid orders; having sold off the goods worth Rs. 75 Lakhs, the opponent had availed of over-draft facility to the extent of Rs. 59 lakhs. 10. It is the complaint of the applicants that the opponent having taken advantage of the aforesaid orders; having sold off the goods worth Rs. 75 lakhs, deposited the amount in the Lord Krishna Bank, as directed. Having deposited the said amount in the Lord Krishna Bank, the opponent was required to instruct the Lord Krishna Bank to pay the said amount to the sales tax authorities by issuing a Banker’s Cheque/Pay Order in the like amount. Instead, the opponent availed of an Over Draft facility upto Rs. 60. lakhs against the said deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs and has thus committed breach of the directions issued by the Court and has perpetrated fraud upon the Court as well as the State Government. 11. Mr. Desai has submitted that the conduct of the opponent betrays the intention of the opponent to defraud the Court as well as the State from the very inception. The Court, therefore, should take serious note of the conduct of the opponent and shall convict him for commission of contempt of Court and shall punish him as envisaged by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 12. Mr. Naik has contested the application. He has submitted that the application is vague. No specific case has been made out as to when 25% of the goods was released by the sale tax authorities; when other 50% of the goods was released by the authorities; when the sale proceed was received by the opponent; when it was deposited in the Bank and how the immovable properties were disposed of. In absence of specific averments made in the application, the application requires to be rejected. He has further submitted that the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs deposited in the Lord Krishna Bank was appropriated by the said Bank against its dues. The opponent had no intention to disobey any of the orders of this Court but was victim of adverse circumstances. He has submitted that today all his properties are disposed of and the opponent has become bankrupt. 29.03.2006 13. We have perused the records of Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004 and the series of orders made thereon. The opponent had no intention to disobey any of the orders of this Court but was victim of adverse circumstances. He has submitted that today all his properties are disposed of and the opponent has become bankrupt. 29.03.2006 13. We have perused the records of Special Civil Application No. 4196 of 2004 and the series of orders made thereon. We are convinced that the opponent offered certain properties as security knowing fully well that the said properties were not free from encumbrance and were mortgaged to Lord Krishna Bank. We are also convinced that the opponent misled the Bench in making the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2004 whereby the Bench modified its earlier order and permitted the opponent to deposit the sale proceeds in the bank instead of paying the same to the State. Having obtained the order for deposit of sale proceeds in the Bank account, the opponent was required to instruct the Bank to issue Pay Order in the name of sales tax authorities. Instead, the opponent drew over-draft of Rs. 60 lakhs. Undoubtedly, the modification dated 07.05.2004 was obtained with an intention and design to defraud the State Government and in the wake, the opponent has also flouted the order of this Court. It cannot be gainsaid that the opponent was aware of his financial condition and his indebtness to the said Lord Krishna Bank. We are, therefore, convinced that from the very inception, the opponent had the intention of defrauding the State Government through the instrumentality of the Court. Having obtained favorable orders from the Court, he deliberately ignored the directions issued by the Court and has misappropriated money which he was supposed to pay to the State. 14. In above view of the matter, we hold that the opponent has deliberately is obeyed the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2004 and the order dated 06.08.2004 made on Civil Application No. 4645 of 2004. We, therefore, hold the opponent guilty and convict the opponent-Rasikbhai Ishwarlal Patel for committing contempt of this Court. 15. We have heard Mr. Naik as well as Rasikhbhai Ishwarlal Patel on the punishment that may be imposed upon the opponent. Mr. Naik has submitted that the opponent is financially broke and paying any fine is out of question. 16. The opponent has not filed counter affidavit. He has not denied the allegations made in this application. 15. We have heard Mr. Naik as well as Rasikhbhai Ishwarlal Patel on the punishment that may be imposed upon the opponent. Mr. Naik has submitted that the opponent is financially broke and paying any fine is out of question. 16. The opponent has not filed counter affidavit. He has not denied the allegations made in this application. Neither he has tendered apology for his contumacious conduct, nor does he repent. 17. In above view of the matter, we direct that the opponent-Rasikhbhai Ishwarlal Patel be detained in civil prison for a period of two months commencing from the date of his arrest i.e. 26.04.2006. 18. Misc. Civil Application stands allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. * * * * *