LexSUBRATA ROY SAHARA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 573 SUBRATA ROY SAHARA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2014) MAY 6, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Judiciary - Practice & Procedure - Recusal of Judges - · Held: Calculated psychological offensives and rnind games C adopted to seek recusa/ of Judges, need to be strongly repulsed - Such tactics deprecated. Contempt of Court - Mannerism and demeanour exhibited by contemnor - Appreciation of - Financial crime 0 - Subscription of OFCDs - I/legality in collection of money from investors -Directions issued by Supreme Court to the two companies in question, to refund the moneys collected by them from investors, who had subscribed to their OFCD's - Non-compliance of - Arrest and detention of contemnors for enforcement of Court directions - Leg.ality of - Challenged E - Writ petition - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable - Disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of . the rule of law, on which the judicial system rests - Judicial · orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs - Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented - In exercise of F contempt jurisdiction - Courts have the power to enforce compliance of judicial orders, and also, the power fo·punish for contempt - On facts, the two companies in question of which the petitioner is a promoter, flouted orders passed by the· SEBI '(FTM), SAT, the High Court and of Supreme Court, G with impunity - Facts and information solicited were never disclosed - Position aclopted by the two companies was always projected on the basis of unverifiable material - The t.wb companies remained adamant while frittering away 5n · H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 12 S.C.R. A repeated opportunities granted by this Court to comply with the orders - The companies adopted a demeanour of defiance constituting a rebellious behaviour, not amenable to the rule of Jaw - Since all the efforts to cajole the two companies and the petitioner were methodically B circumvented, this Bench started adopting sequentially harsher means to persuade compliance of this Court's orders, leading finally to the passing of the impugned order - Principles of natural justice were followed - There was no bias - Constitution of India, 1950- Arts. 32 rlw 21, 129 and 142- C Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Abuse of Court - Suggestion given to the legislatqre to formulate a mechanism that· anyone who initiates and continues a· litigation senselessly, pays for the same - Legislature to consider introduction of a "Code of Compulsory D Costs" E Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: I. Should we be hearing this case? Would it not be better, for another Bench to hear this case? F 1; Though it was suggested, that this Bench should recuse itself from hearing the case, and require it to be · heard by another compositic;>n, not including either of the members of this Bench, however, the oath of this office, required to go ahead with the hearing. If it was the counsel's posturing antics, aimed at bench-.hunting or G bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), that .. · would not be allowed. [Para 2 and 11] [592-D; 597-H; 598- A] . . 2. One of the reasons for retaining the instant petition H fornearing with ourselves was, that this Bench had heard SUBRATA ROY SAHARA v. U~ION OF INDIA 575 eminent Senior Counsel engaged by the two companies A exclusively for over three weeks during the summer vacation of 2012; had been taken through thousands of pages of pleadings and had the occasion to watch the demeanour and defences adopted by the two companies and the contemnors from time to time, from close 8 quarters. Writing the judgment, had occupied the entire remaining period of the summer vacation of 2012, as also, about two months of further time. For any other Bench to understand the . nuances of the controversy determined through this Bench's order dated 31.8.2012 (whereby this Court had confirmed the directions earlier C issued to the two companies in question, to refund the moneys collected by them from investors, who had subscribed to their OFCDs, by the SEBI (FTM) and by the SAT) would require prolonged hearing of the matter. Months of time, just in the same manner as this Bench D had taken while passing the order dated 31.8.2012, would have to be spent again. It was also for the sake of saving precious
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.