E. BAPANAIAH versus SRI K.S. RAJU ETC.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1413 · Decided: 07-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1413 
E. BAPANAIAH 
A 
v. 
SRI K.S. RAJU ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2357-65 of2014) 
NOVEMBER 07, 2014 
B 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court - Civil contempt - Breach of 
undertaking given to Company Law Board (CLB) by · 
Respondent - Contempt Case - Conviction and sentence, 
C 
recorded against Respondent by Single Judge of High 
Court - Contempt appeal - Division Bench of High Court 
setting aside the conviction and sentence- Propriety- Held: 
Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt 
of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a 0 
party to obey orders passed by its subordinate courts for the 
simple reason that there are provisions contained in Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and 
decrees- It is not the object of the Contempt of Courts Act to 
· make decree holders rush to the High Courts simply for the 
E 
reason that the decree passed by the subordinate court is 
not obeyed- However, there is no such procedure prescribed 
to execute order of CLB particularly after proviso is added to 
Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956, vide Companies 
(Second Amendment) Act, 2002 - Respondent wilfully 
disobeyed the order of CLB and breached the undertaking F 
given to CLB, and thereby committed Contempt of Court 
subordinate to High Court - Accordingly, order passed by 
Single Judge in Contempt Case, to the extent of conviction 
and sentence recorded against respondent stands 
restored- However, in exercise of powers under Article 142 G 
of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice between 
the parties, sixty days time allowed to respondent, to repay 
the entire amount to the depositor/appellant as directed by 
CLB - If within sixty days payment is not made to the 
H 
1413 
1414 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS . [2014)138.C.R. 
A depositor/appellant, respondent be taken into custody to 
serve out sentence as recorded against him by the Single 
Judge in Contempt Case - If, as directed, payment is made 
to the appellant within sixty days, the sentence be reduced 
to the extent of fine only- Companies Act, 1956 - Companies 
B (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 -
Constitution of India -
Arts. 136 and 142. 
Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. 
and other 1975 Supp (3) SCC 81: Sk. Mohammedbhikhan 
Hussainbhai v. The Manager Chandrabhanu Cinema AIR 
C 1986 Guj 209; and N. Venkata Swamy Naidu v. Sri Surya 
Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and others 2008 CriLJ 227 -
referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
D 1975 Supp (3) SCC 81 
referred to 
AIR 1986 Guj 209 
referred to 
Para 26 
Para 26 
2008 CriLJ 227 
referred to 
Para 26 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
E Appeal Nos. 2357-2365 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2008 of the 
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Contempt 
Appeal No. 3of11of2007. 
B. Kant Rao, Kashyap, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advs. for 
F theAppellant. 
C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Annam D. N. Rao, 
A Venkatesh,A. Subba Rao, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are directed against judgment and 
order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, 
Andhra Pradesh, in ContemptAppeal Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
1 O and 11 of 2007 whereby said Court has allowed all the 
H Contempt Appeals setting aside the order dated 3.8.2007 
E. BAPANAIAHv. SRI K.s. RAJU ETC. 
1415 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
passed in Contempt Case No. 915 of2002 wherein K.S. Raju, A 
Promoter Director of Mis. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, 
Hyderabad, and its other directors were convicted under 
Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and each one of 
them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a 
period of six months and were further directed to pay fine of B 
Rs.2,0001- each. 
3. At the outset, we have no hesitation to observe that 
the impugned order does not require interference to the extent 
the same is passed in Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2007 filed 
by Minoo R. Shroof, Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 2007 filed by C 
Nimesh N. Kampani, Contempt Appeal No. 6of2007 filed by 
C.D. Menon, Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 2007 filed by A.P. 
Kurian, Contempt Appeal No. 8 of 2007 filed by Sridhar Chary, 
ContemptAppeal No. 9 of 2007 filed by G.S. Raju, Contempt 
Appeal No. 10 of 2007 filed by P. K. Madhav, and Contempt D 
Appeal No. 11 of 2007 filed by L.V.V. lyyer, which were allowed 
for the reason that in the Contempt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.