MIS PACKRAFf (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
A
DIRECTOR V.S. MANN
v.
U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 13, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Contempt of Court
Law laid down by Supreme Cowt-ls law underA1ticle 141-Action in C
violation of law laid down-Held appropriate remedy is judicial review and
not contempt proceedings.
This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the proper-
ties of the appellant-defaulter were brought to sale by the respon-
dent-Financial Corporation in violation of the guidelines laid down by D
this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case*.
Dismissing the petition, this Court
HELD : The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case is
the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the
law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid
down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial
review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court. [180-C]
*Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, [1993] 2 SCC 279, referred to.
CONTEMPT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995.
In
Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.90 of the Allahabad High
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 13916 of 1987.
Mahavir Singh, M.S. Dahiya, Ms. Kusum Singh and B.S. More for
E
F
G
the Petitioner.
H
179
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
c
D
E
This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, (1993] 2 SCC 279 has laid
down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to
sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of
specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not
been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful
disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents
rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We
are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.
The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra)
is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound
by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the
law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by
a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.
Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made
by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for
contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate
remedy according to law.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.
Lex