BANK OF BARODA versus SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANK OF BARODA 
1 
' 
. v . 
SADRUDDIN HASAN DAY A AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2(b) & 20-Consent decree 
passed by Supreme Court upon an undertaking given by contemnors not 
f 
to alienate aitached properties till payment of defaulted amount to Bank-
c Default in payment of amount-On execution before Debts Recovery 
Tribunal, Bank came to know that contemnors have entered into another 
similar consent decree with another Bank before High Court placing same 
properties under attachment-Contempt petition by Bank-Held, contemnors 
guilty of civil contempt for wilful breach of undertaking given to this 
D Court-Hence sentenced to imprisonment. 
Petitioner Bank filed a suit against respondents for recovery of 
certain amount of money. The respondents were granted unconditional 
leave to defend the Suit passed in Summons by the trial court. During 
1. 
E the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the petitioner and the 
respondents entered into a settlement. The appeal was disposed of by 
,,.-• 
this Court with a consent decree. Under the settlement, the properties 
of the respondents would remain attached with the petitioner till the 
payment of the defaulted amount with interest in instalments. The 
respondents further undertook not to sell, mortgage, alienate, encum-
,. 
F her or charge the properties attached till the payment is made to the 
petitioner. The respondents committed default in payment of first · 
instalment to the petitioner. The petitioner moved Debts Recovery 
Tribunal for execution of the consent decree passed by this Court. The 
petitioner came to know at the time of execution that the respondents 
G have entered into another consent decree with another Bank before the 
i' 
High Court without disclosing the consent decree passed by this Court 
and placing the same properties under attachment. The respondents 
further filed written submissions before t~e Tribunal contending that 
the consent decree passed by this Court is without jurisdiction. Hence, 
H the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition against the respondents before 
764 
BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAY A 
765 
this Court. 
The petitioner contended that the respondents alienated the 
attached properties in violation of the consent decree passed by this 
Court by entering into a consent decree with another Bank approved 
A 
by High Court; and that they have made contemptuous statement 
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the decree passed by this B 
Court is a nullity. 
The respondent-contemnors contended that non-compliance of 
the terms of a consent decree by them does not amount to contempt 
of Court; that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden beyond C 
reasonable doubt to prove that the respondents have committed 
Contempt of Court; and that the contempt proceedings initiated by the 
petitioners is barred by limitation under section 20 of the Contempt 
of Courts Act, 1971. 
Allowing the Contempt Petitions and sentencing the contemners, D 
the Court 
HELD : 1.1. After filing the consent terms and passing of the 
decree by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to file consent 
terms in another suit whereunder the same properties were to remain E 
under attachment till the decree passed in the suit was satisfied and 
in the event of the decree in the suit becoming executable, the Court 
Receiver would have power to sell the properties and to pay over the 
sale proceeds to the plaintiff of the suit. It is therefore clear that by 
the consent terms filed by the respondents before the High Court in F 
the suit instituted by another Bank on the basis of which the another 
suit was disposed of, the undertaking given before this Court not to 
encumber or charge the attached properties to anyone until the decree 
was satisfied was clearly violated. [775-C-El 
1.2. A lega.I plea taken by a party that a decree passed by a Court G 
(including Supreme Court) is without jurisdiction and therefore a 
nullity will not normally amount to a contemptuous statement. It is not 
the case of the respondents that any fraud was played upon them by 
any party when they entered into a settlement and signed the minutes 
of the decree. It appears that the respondents from the very inception H 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A had no intention of paying the amount, but they agreed for a settlement 
and consent terms only for the purpose of gaining
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.