BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) ETC. versus BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 700 
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. 
MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) ETC. 
v. 
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4298-4299of2017) 
MARCH 21, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Violation of Courts order -
Restitutive measure - Company s land acquired by NHAI - In view 
C of conflicting claims regarding compensation, Single Judge directed 
NHAI to deposit entire amount of compensation in Court vide order 
dated 23.02.2011 - Entire amount deposited by NHAI after 
deducting an amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/- by way of TDS -
Company concerned filed its income-tax return, claimed and received 
D refund of entire amount covered by TDS, after deducting tax - Said 
amount utilised in connection with the affairs of company -
Appellants filed contempt petition alleging violation of order dated 
23.02.2011- Single Judge opining that there was deliberate violation 
of said order, directed respondents (who were managing affairs of 
the company) not to operate the bank accounts of company without 
E securing the amount of Rs.10,55,60,3311- - Division Bench without 
interfering with the Rule issued to respondents under contempt 
proceedings, vacated the order restricting operation of bank 
accounts - Held: Order dated 23.02.2011 regarding the deposit in 
court was passed to secure the entire compensation fmm NHAI -
F 
G 
The Court was concerned about appropriately protecting the money 
received from NHAI towards compensation - Since NHAI was bound 
to deduct TDS, an amount of Rs.10,55,60,3311- was paid to the 
Income Tax Department - Undoubtedly, the said amount formed 
part of compensation - Merely because it goes through Income-Tax 
Department, the same does not cease to be part of compensation -
Therefore, the respondents should not have appropriated the refund 
received from the Income Tax Department and ought to have sought 
orders from the Court while handling the same -Appropriation made 
by respondents of the refund amount was in violation of order dated 
23.02.2011 - Division Bench wrong in holding otherwise - As a 
H 
restitutive measure, direction given by Supreme Court . 
. 700 
BARANAGOREJUTEFACTORYPLC.MAZDOORSANGH(BMS)v. 
701 
BARAN A GORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The order dated 23.02.2011 regarding the 
deposit in court was passed to secure the entire compensation 
from the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). The court 
was concerned about the money to be received from the NHAI 
towards the compensation and appropriately protecting the same 
B 
from being used by the company. Even the respondents herein 
had" ... no objection to money being protected ... ". The court had, 
in fact, declined the request made by the respondents ... "to 
receive the compensation and to keep the same in fixed deposit 
subject to further orders of the court". The Official Liquidator 
was of the view that ... "the money should be deposited with the 
C 
Registrar, Original Side". [Para 18] [710-G-H; 711-A] 
1.2 It is fairly clear that the Single Judge had in mind the 
entire compensation paid by the NHAI in respect of the land 
acquired by them. Since the NHAI was bound to deduct TDS, an 
amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/- was paid to the Income-Tax D 
Department. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the said 
amount formed part of the compensation. Merely ~ecat1se it goes 
through the Income-Tax Department, the same does not cease 
to be part of compensation. Even the respondents had submitted 
before the court at the time of passing the order dated 23.02.2011 
that the compensation amount needed to be protected and they 
_were willing to protect it subject to the order of the court. 
Therefore, the respondents, while handling of the compensation 
amount, had to seek orders from the court; going by the way 
they understood the proceedings. [Para 19] [711-D-E] 
E 
F 
1.3 In this background, the respondents should not have 
appropriated the refund they received from the Income-Tax 
Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund. The 
problem is in utilising the refund received. The refund they 
received was actually the compensation in respect of the land 
acquired from the company and it was that amount which the court G 
wanted to protect by its order dated 23.02.2011. Hence, prima 
facie, the appropriation made by the respondents of the refund 
amount they received from the Income-Tax Department was in 
violation of the or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.