MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN AND ORS. versus THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 02-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORs. 
AUGUST 2, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court-Application by creditors for appointment of receiver 
and for attachment of properties of Company-Order for attachment of 
C properties by trial court-Violation of-During pendency of appeal before 
Supreme Court, debtors willing to dispose off the properties to meet the 
demand of creditors-Hence, the Court directed.to work out the modalities 
to meet dues of creditors and discharge the liabilities without entering into 
the issue of commission of contempt. 
D . 
Many persons subscribed to the various fixed Deposits and saving 
schemes started by a company. On the date of maturity, the certificates issued 
were not honoured. Appellants-investors lodged FIR. They filed application 
for appointment of receiver and for attachment of the properties. Application 
was allowed. Magistrate issued public notice directing attachment of 
properties. However, orders for attachment were violated. Appellants filed 
E Revision Petition which was dismissed. Appellants then filed application. High 
Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It was submitted by the appellants that after having violated 
F various orders passed, one of the non-official respondents has now come to 
dispose off the properties to meet the demands of creditors and to wipe out 
the liabilities. Ultimately, t_he people who are the creditors have to get back 
their money. Without entering into the matters relating to the commission of 
contempt, it would be appropriate for the concerned Court to work out the 
G details and the modalities as to how the properties could be sold to get the 
highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities could be 
discharged. (Para 6) (778-A, B, q 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 
H 
776 
i 
MOHAMMAD SHAF A-AT KHAN v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [PASAYAT, J.) 
777 
2Wl. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order 8.3.2004 of the High Court.of Delhi at New 
Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99 of 2003 
S.K.Bhattacharya for the Appellants 
Vikas Sharma D.S.Mahara,Anil Katiyar, Sandhaya Goswami, Dr. Natis A. 
Siddiqui, Shiv Kumar Suri,. Balraj Dewan for the respondents 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA¥ AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the application filed by the 
appellants. 
B 
3. Challenge in the petition before the High Court was to the order p 
passed by a learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, 
dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellants. 
4-. Grievances in short were that one M/s Habib Investments Ltd. 
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') 
advertised in various newspapers inviting the general public to subscribe in E 
various Fixed Deposits and saving schemes. Since the schemes were very 
lucrative, many innocent persons subscribed to the schemes. Various persons 
were appointed as agents on commission basis to collect the money from 
subscribers. Many people who were to get money complained of cheating 
stating that on the date of maturity, the certificates issued were not honoured. F 
First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Lahori Gate, 
Delhi. Initially, the application was filed for appointment of Receiver in respect 
of Mis Habib Group of Companies and to make an order to attach the 
properties. Five properties were attached. A public notice was issued by the 
learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing attachment of the properties. 
Grievance was made that notwithstanding the order of attachment the G 
properties were either dboosed of or dealt with in a manner contrary to the 
order of attachment. 
5. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the 
application filed by the appellants on the ground that they had no locus 
standi to file a revision petition. The High Court by a single line order H 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A dismissed the petition filed before it. 
6. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the 
non official respondents that they are willing to dispose off the properties to 
meet the demands of the creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted

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