CELIR LLP versus MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1618 · Decided: 13-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 28 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1618 : 2024 INSC 978
Celir LLP 
v. 
Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors.
(Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 158-159 of 2024) 
In 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5542-5543 of 2023)
13 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against 
the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the 
final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court 
in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023 which directed issuance 
of Sale Certificate of the Secured Asset (belonging to respondent 
no.1-Borrower) to the petitioner-auction purchaser; Respondent 
no.4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, i.e., respondent 
no.2 were the subsequent transferee/third party purchaser and 
respondent no.3, ‘Union Bank of India’ was the secured creditor/ 
bank. Accordingly, the following questions arose for consideration:-
1.	
Whether any act of contempt could be said to have been 
committed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 respectively of 
the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023; whether the 
respondents in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court were 
duty bound to cancel the Release Deed dated 28.08.2023 
(executed for discharge of mortgage over the Secured Asset) 
and hand over physical possession along with original title 
deeds of the Secured Asset to the petitioner.
2.	
Whether, proceedings arising out of Securitization Application 
being S.A. No. 46 of 2022 preferred by the Borrower u/s.17 of 
SARFAESI Act before DRT [assailing demand notice issued 
by the Bank for repayment of principal amount and further 
notice of the Bank classifying the Borrower’s account as 
NPA and taking symbolic possession of the Secured Asset] 
could have continued after this Court’s judgment and order 
dated 21.09.2023; whether the petitioner by virtue of the 
Sale Certificate dated 27.09.2023 (issued by the Bank for 
*Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1619
Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors.
the Secured Asset) can be said to have acquired a clear title 
to the said property; and
3.	
Whether the transfer of the Secured Asset in favour of the 
Subsequent Transferee by way of Assignment Agreement 
dated 28.08.2023 was hit by lis pendens; whether the absence 
of any registration in accordance with Section 52 of the 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended by the State of 
Maharashtra rendered the lis pendens inapplicable.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – Constitution of 
India – Art. 129 – Mere conduct of parties aimed at frustrating 
the court proceedings or circumventing its decisions, even 
without an explicit prohibitory order, constitutes contempt – 
However, power of contempt to be exercised sparingly and 
with caution  – On facts, respondents demonstrated effort 
and willingness to purge themselves of their contemptuous 
conduct in violation of Court’s judgment – One last opportunity 
to them to abide by the judgment:
Held: 1. The contempt jurisdiction of this court cannot be construed 
by any formulaic or rigid approach – Merely because there is no 
prohibitory order or no specific direction issued the same would not 
mean that the parties cannot be held guilty of contempt. [Para 199]
2. Mere conduct of parties aimed at frustrating the court proceedings 
or circumventing its decisions, even without an explicit prohibitory 
order, constitutes contempt – Such actions interfere with the 
administration of justice, undermine the respect and authority of 
the judiciary, and threaten the rule of law – However, at the same 
time, the power of contempt ought to be exercised sparingly and 
with caution and care – It operates with a string of caution and 
unless otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor 
reasonable for the courts to resort to such powers –  The standard 
of proof required before a person is held guilty of committing 
contempt of court must be beyond all reasonable doubt – The 
courts while exercising its contempt jurisdiction must remain 
circumspect, more particularly, where there exists a possibility 
of the order being amenable to more than one interpretation.  
[Paras 201, 202 and 203]
3.1. On facts, it is true that this Court in its decision rendered 
in the Main Appeals had not issued any specific direction either 
1620
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the Borrower or the Subsequent Transferee as regards the 
handing over of physical possession and the original title deed to 
the 

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