ECL FINANCE LTD. versus HARIKISHAN SHANKARJI GUDIPATI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 16-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017] 11S.C.R.1036 
ECL FINANCE LTD. 
v. 
HARIKISHAN SHANKARJI GUDIPATI & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!No.18834of2017) 
B 
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.J 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.19 - Appellant filed a 
contempt petition alleging that the respondents had not honoured 
the consent decree - Single Judge of High Court admitted the 
C 
contempt petition and issued notice to the respondents - Intra-Court 
appeal u/s. 19 of the Act filed by the respondents, which was 
admitted by the Division Bench of High Court - Propriety of- Held: 
Observations made by the Single Judge, while issuing notice in the 
contempt petition, is only for the prima facie satisfaction as to 
D 
whether the contempt petition needs to be considered on merits -
Only after such a preliminary stage, notice can be issued - Now, it 
is open to the respondents to file their reply and after considering 
the defence, the Single Judge to take a call as to whether it is a 
case to be proceeded against for punishing the respondents - In 
case such a decision is taken by the High Court, it is, at that stage, 
E 
that the respondents get a right to file an appeal before the 
Division Bench in terms of s.19( I)( a) of the Act - Such a stage 
having not arisen, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench 
set aside. 
F 
G 
H 
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. 
Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006) S SCC 399 : 
(2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 986 - relied on. 
R.N. Dey and Others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and 
Others (2000) 4 SCC 400 : [2000] 3 SCR 172 ; 
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare 
Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Others (2009) 2 SCC 
784 : [2008] 17 SCR 8S - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2000] 3 SCR 172 
referred to 
[2008] 17 SCR 8S · 
referred to 
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 986 
relied on 
1036 
Paras 
Paras 
Para6 
ECL FINANCE LTD. v. HARIKISHAN SHANKARJI GUDIPATI. 103} 
& ORS. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 18834 
A 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2017 of the High Court 
of Bombay in Appeal (LDG.) No. 2/17. · 
Ms. lndu Malhotra, Sr. Adv, Prashant Singh, Tanvir Nayar, Vikas 
13 
Mehta, Ad vs for the Appellant. 
Ankur Mirta!, Adv for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by an order dated 
141h February, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Bombay in Appeal (LDG.) No.2 of 2017. The said appeal was filed 
against the order dated 22..i December, 2016 in Contempt Petition No. 
D 
17of2016inSuitNo.802of2014. 
· 
3. The appellant filed a Contempt Petition alleging that the 
respondents herein had not honoured the consent decree drawn on 141h 
August, 2015, and hence they are liable to be punished for contempt. It 
appears that the appellant had also initiated execution proceedings, since 
E 
in the decree, it is stated that in case the terms of the consent are violated, 
the suit would stand decreed in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. 
Be that as it may, we find from the order dated 22"d December, 2016 of 
the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has admitted the 
contempt petition and has issued notice to the respondents. It is, at that 
F 
stage that the respondents filed an intra-Court appeal under Section 19 
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 
Act"). The Court admitted the appeal, despite the objections regarding 
the maintainability, leaving the question of the maintainability of the appeal 
to be considered al the time of final hearing. 
4. It appears from the impugned order passed by the Division 
Bench that, during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, 
a direction was issued to deposit an amount of Re. 1,00,00,000/- Which 
has subsequently been withdrawn by the appellant-as per Order dated 
21" July, 2017 passed by this Court. 
G 
H 
1038 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 1 I S.C.R. 
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to two 
decisions of this Court in R.N. Dey and Others v. Bha1,?yabati 
Pramanik and Others 1 and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank 
filiareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Others2 
and made a persuasive submission regarding the maintainability of the 
appeal. We are afraid that the decisions relied upon by the respondents 
do not further their case, in the given facts and circumstances. R.N. 
I'D: (supra) was a case where the High Court declin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.