Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 103 (MP)

Bank of Baroda v. Manish Shrivastava

2021-02-04

G.S.AHLUWALIYA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed complaining that the Debts Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur has violated the mandate of this Court as contained in order dated 16.05.2006 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999 (Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s. Premier Brass and Metals Ltd.,) and thus has made himself liable for punishment for committing gross Contempt of Court. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that M/s. Premier Brass and Metal Works Ltd., had availed various loan facilities from the applicant right from the year 1956. The loans and the cash credit facilities were renewed/increased from time to time. The leasehold plot No. 5, Industrial Estate, Govindpura, Bhopal was equitably mortgaged with the applicant by way of security. Other securities were also created such as hypothecation of tangible movable properties and machineries as well as finished and raw materials stored or available in stocks or in the trade thereof from time to time. As the borrower failed to repay the balance outstanding amount to the appellant, therefore, a suit for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 14,03,38,797.30/- was filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Bhopal which was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Hindustan Copper Limited filed a suit before the High Court at Delhi to which the applicant was not a party and was not having any knowledge and the suit was decreed. The decree was transferred to District Judge, Bhopal for its execution and on execution of the decree the property of M/s. Premier Brass and Metal Works Ltd., Bhopal was attached. When the auction was being conducted, the applicant came to know about the same and accordingly filed an application under Order 21 Rule 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court objecting to the attachment and sale on the ground that the applicant is a secured creditor having obtained pledge or mortgage of all the movable and immovable property and other creditor has no right to proceed against the machineries and other movable and immovable properties mortgaged with the applicant. 4. The said application was rejected by the Executing Court. 4. The said application was rejected by the Executing Court. The order dated 15.09.1999 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Execution Transfer Case No. 08/1998 was challenged by the applicant by filing M.A. No. 1153/1999 which was finally disposed of by order dated 16.05.2006 with the following observations:- "In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.02.1999 is set aside and it is declared that Section 33-C of the Act does not affect the rights created in the appellant's favour by mortgage or pledge of the property of respondent No. 1 before 15th March, 1976 and these rights cannot be sold for the recovery of the sales tax dues of the respondent No. 1 or for the amount due to the decree holder." 5. An application for review/recall of the order dated 16.05.2006 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999 was filed by one Jeevan Singh Chatwal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.02.2014 passed in M.C.C. No. 1375/2006 and the S.L.P. arising out of the order of review was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.07.2014. Similarly, the State of Madhya Pradesh has challenged the order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999 which too was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2008. 6. It is submitted that inspite of the clear directions given by this Court, the Recovery Officer by the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 has virtually nullified the order passed by this Court by holding that since the sale has not been set aside, therefore the property sold to bonafide purchaser cannot be restored to its previous position. 7. It is submitted that by overreaching the order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999, the Recovery Officer has committed gross contempt of Court, therefore, he should be punished. 8. Heard counsel for the applicant. 9. The respondent by order dated 26.11.2020 has interpreted the order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999. Whether it is a correct interpretation or it is a misinterpretation cannot be adjudicated in the contempt jurisdiction. 10. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Shri Shroti, Senior Counsel for the applicant that, the order dated 26.11.2020 has already been challenged in appeal. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramanarang Vs. Appeal No. 1153/1999. Whether it is a correct interpretation or it is a misinterpretation cannot be adjudicated in the contempt jurisdiction. 10. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Shri Shroti, Senior Counsel for the applicant that, the order dated 26.11.2020 has already been challenged in appeal. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramanarang Vs. Ramesh Narang and others passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92/2008 by order dated 19.01.2021 has held as under:- "48. It is thus clear that for bringing an action under the ambit of civil contempt, there has to be a willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the court................ **** 67. It is the main contention of the petitioner, that invoking the jurisdiction of the CLB and entertaining the said proceedings by the CLB, itself amounts to contempt. 68. It will be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Pratap Singh and Another v. Gurbaksh Singh. This Court after referring to various judgments of the High Courts, observed thus:- "The principle behind all these cases is that such action of the person which he takes in pursuance of his right to take legal action in a Court of law or in just making a demand on the other to make amends for his acts will not amount to interfering with the course of justice, even though that may require some action on the part of the other party in connection with his own judicial proceeding, as a party is free to take action to enforce his legal rights." It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that such action of a person which he takes in pursuance of his right to take legal action in a court of law, will not amount to interfering with the course of justice, even though that may require some action on the part of the other party in connection with his own judicial proceedings. The principle is, that a party is free to take action to enforce his legal right. This Court has approved the view taken by 1962 SCR Supp. The principle is, that a party is free to take action to enforce his legal right. This Court has approved the view taken by 1962 SCR Supp. (2) 838 Allahabad High Court in Hrishikesh Sanyal v. A.P. Bagchi and Radhey Lal v. Niranjan Nath, that a person does not commit contempt of court if during the pendency of certain proceedings, he takes recourse to other judicial proceedings open to him, even though the latter proceedings put the other party at a loss." 12. If the facts of the present case are considered, it is clear that the Successful purchaser had moved an application before the Recovery Officer which has been decided by him. If the petitioner is of the view that the conclusion drawn by the Recovery Officer is not in conformity with the decision given by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1153/1999, then he has the remedy to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority but in the considered opinion of this Court, the Recovery Officer cannot be held to be liable for contempt. 13. Accordingly, no case is made out for proceeding against the Recovery Officer. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. Needless to mention that the dismissal of the contempt petition will not have any bearing on the appeal, if filed by the applicant.