ABHJJIT TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD. versus TERAI TEA CO. (P) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 08-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1 
ABHJJIT TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
TERA! TEA CO. (P) LTD. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.1.] 
B 
Conten1pl of Co1ut. 
Order of Co1ut-Non-cun1pliance---Co11rt directing refund of an1ount 
held in Coult deposit-Registrar of High Cowt failing in complying with the C 
Order--A]Jplication for initiating conte111pt proceedings--Held, Registrar was 
absolutely careless and indifferent to give effect to orde1:' passed by this 
Coiut-Such conduct calls fnr strong condentnation-Entries to be nzade in 
confidential character mils. 
A sum of Rs.19, 33,873.74 was held in Court deposit in a Civil Appeal D 
pending before the Calcutta High Court. Wl1ile disposing of the appeal, 
the Division Bench of the High Court directed its Registrar, respondent 
no. 1, to refund the said amount to the petitioner. By the time the review 
petition was filed, one of the members of the Bench had retired. The Single 
Judge on 21.7.1994, rejected the review petition and directed respondent E 
no. 1 to hold the money for one week. The petitioner challenged the order 
before this Court hy filing a special leave petition. This Court, on 16.8.1994, 
noticing the fact that another review petition was pending before the High 
Court, set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner 
made applications to respondent no. 1 for refund of the amount. 
Meanwhile, on 2.9.1994, the Single Judge of the High Court also recalled 
F 
the earlier order elated 21.7.1_994 making it clear that there would be no 
interim order in view of the order passed by this Court on 16.8.1994; and 
directed to list the review application for hearing. The review application 
was heard on 16.9.94 when the Court directed the parties to place their 
written submissions by 26.9.1994 and that the Registrar would not make G 
the refund "for a 11eriod of fortnight." 
The petitioner tiled an application before this Court on 23.9.94 
alleging that the order passed by this Court on 16.8.1994 was not complied 
\Vith and, therefore, contempt proceedings be initiated against the 
Registrar of the High Court, respondent No.1, and other respondents, who H 
825 
826 
SUPl<tME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A were causing impediments in the refund of the amount to the petitioner. 
B 
c 
Disposing of the contempt application, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no justifiable reason fur respondent no. 1 in 
failing to give effect to the order passed by this Court on 16.8.1994. The said 
order was broughtto his notice more than once. On 2.9.1994 the Single Judge 
of the High Court vacated the earlier order. The petitioner again requested 
.for refund of the amount on the same day and thereafter on 5.9.1994.Prima 
facie the 1st respondent has no excuse, whatsoever, in not refunding the 
amount to the petitioner from 8.9.1994 to 16.9.1994. (828-F-G] 
1.2. On a perusal of the material on record and in particular the 
counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 in the contempt petition 
itself, it is clear that respondent no. 1 was absolutely careless and indif-
ferent to give effect to the orders passed by this Court till the Single Judge 
of the Calcutta High Court made the order on September 2, 1994. His 
D reprehensible .conduct and indifference to implement the order of this 
Court calls for strong condemnation and he is unworthy to hold any office 
of responsibility. The same need to be entered in his Confidential character 
rolls. The Chief Justice of the High Court would look into his conduct to 
E 
take action as is appropriate in this behalf. (830-B-C] 
2. It is sad indeed to notice that the same Judge of th" High Court, 
who passed the order dated 2.9.1994 and vacated the earlier order with-
holding the refund, passed the order dated 16.9.1994 stating that the 1st 
respondent will not make payment" for a period of fortnight". (828-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 249 
of 1994. 
IN 
G 
Civil Appeal No. 5647 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and order dated 6.5.94 of the Calcutta High 
Court in A. No. 514 of 1992. 
N. R. Choudhary and Somnath Mukherjee for the Petitioner/ Ap-
H 
pellant. 
r 
ABHIJIT TEA CO. PVT.LTD. v. TERAI TEA CO. (P) LTD. 
827 
Santosh Hegde, Kapil Sibal, Dilip Sinha, J. R. Das, H.K. Puri and A 
V.N. Dwivedi for the Respondents/Contemners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner herein is Mis. Abhijit Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and the B 
respondents are (l) Registrar (Origin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.