NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. versus TUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 02-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 496 
A 
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. 
v. 
TUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR. 
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2009) 
IN 
B 
(Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2006) 
APRIL 2, 2013. 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
C 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Art. 129 - Contempt petition filed for violation of order of 
Supreme Court - Held: Respondent cannot be held guilty of 
contempt of court on the definite charge that he withdrew a very 
0 large amount from his account in Pictet in violation of the 
orders of Supreme Court - The amount had been withdrawn 
prior to the order restraining the respondent from withdrawing 
the amount from the account in question - Further, the amount 
had been withdrawn during the period when there was no 
E attachment order in respect of the account - That being the 
position, there could be no question of committing any 
violation of Court's order by respondent - The order holding 
the respondent guilty of contempt is based on an erroneous 
premise, and is, therefore, recalled - Supreme Court Rules, 
F 
1966 - 0. 47 - Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt 
of Supreme Court, 1975 - r. 3(c). 
On failure of a company in Turkey, of which 
respondent no. 1 was the Manager, to supply urea in spite 
of the petitioner-company having paid the full price, a 
G criminal case was registered in India against a number 
of accused including respondent no. 1 (accused No. 11 ). 
Respondent no. 1 and another accused were extradited 
to India on 3.10.1997. In the SLP filed by the petitioner 
before the Supreme Court, it moved an application 
H 
496 
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. TUNCAY ALANKUS 497 
&ANR. 
requiring respondent no. 1 not to withdraw any portion 
A 
of the defrauded amount lying in foreign jurisdiction. On 
4.9.2006, Supreme Court passed an interim order 
restraining respondent no. 1 from withdrawing the 
amounts from the accounts in Swiss Bank. By order 
dated 14.12.2006 the interim order dated 4.9.2006 was 
made ab$olute. On 9.3.2009, the bank concerned 
informed that they did not hold any asset on behalf of 
respondent no. 1. The instant contempt petition was filed 
alleging violation of orders dated 4.9.2006 and 14.12.2006. 
B 
By order dated 1.4.2010, the respondent was held guilty c 
of contempt of court. The case was directed to be listed 
on 12.4.2010 for passing the sentence on the contempt 
giving liberty to respondent no. 1 meanwhile to deposit 
the amount. However, respondent no. 1 did not deposit 
the amount. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A careful scrutiny of the material facts 
makes it clear that respondent No.1 cannot really be held 
guilty of contempt. [para 31) [507-F-G] 
1.2 In the connected proceedings in Switzerland, on 
June 19, 1996, the petitioner was able to obtain a criminal 
attachment order against the three accounts in Pictet, 
including account No.91925 in the name of respondent 
no. 1. However, the criminal attachment order was 
defreezed on April 1, 2003 as the trial was not concluded 
within one year and respondent no. 1 was no~ freed on 
bail during that period as per thg terms stipulated by the 
Swiss authorities. [para 21) [505-D-E] 
1.3 From the facts, it is clear that the attachment 
against the respondent's account was lifted on 1.6. 2006 
when the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's 
appeal and the petitioner was able to obtain the next 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 2 S.C.R. 
-A attachment order only on 15.12.2006. There was, thus, a 
period of slightly over six months when there was no 
attachment order in respect of the account and 
according to the bank's statement, the amount was 
withdrawn on June 21, 2006 (i.e. twenty days after the 
B attachment order was lifted) and the account was closed 
on 25.7.2006. It is, thus, clear that on 4.9.2006 yvhen this 
Court passed the order prohibiting respondent No.1 from 
withdrawing any money from the account there was 
actually no money in the account. That being the position, 
c there could be no question of committing any violation 
of this Court's order by respondent No.1, therefore, 
cannot be held guilty of contempt of court on the definite 
charge that he withdrew a very large amount from his 
account in Pictet in violation of the orders of this Court. 
0 [para 36 and 37) [510-F-H; 5·12-A-EJ 
E 
Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
and Others 2010 (2) SCR 1086 = 2010 (3) SCC 705; Chhotu 
Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Another 2001 (7)

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