SUPER BAZAR KARAMCHARI DALIT SANGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
  SUPER BAZAR KARAMCHARI DALIT SANGH AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(M.A. Nos.1394-1395 of 2017)
In
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.8398-8399 of 2005)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
Contempt Petition – Maintainability of – Petition alleging non-
compliance of order dated 17.05.2018 passed by Supreme Court –
Objection to maintainability of the petition on the ground that on
account of non-jointer of necessary parties and on account of other
circumstances full facts were not placed before the Court when the
order dated 17.05.2018 was passed – Held: In absence of key
stakeholders, full perspective of the matter was not presented before
the Court – To prevent miscarriage of justice order dated 17.05.2018
is recalled and hence contempt petition for non-compliance of order
dated 17.05.2018, does not survive.
‘Super Bazar’ a multi-State Cooperative Society incurred
huge losses and was unable to discharge its liabilities towards its
stakeholders.  ‘Super Bazar’ went into liquidation.  Order of
liquidation was challenged by employees’ Union before High
Court.  When the matter reached Supreme Court, the Court in
order to obviate the order of winding up in the interest of all the
stakeholders, directed a revival scheme under its supervision.
Under the revival plan ‘WPL’ invested Rs. 504 crores.  But no
revival took place.  Therefore, this Court giving effect to the
process of terminating the arrangement for revival, directed
refund of entire investment made by WPL with interest @ 6%
p.a.  subject to profit during arrangement period.  Such deductions
were to be made after verification by an auditor nominated by
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).  Official Liquidator was
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 428
428
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
directed to proceed with the process of liquidation only after
discharging the liability of WPL. CAG submitted its report.  WPL
raised objections to the report.  Contempt proceedings were
initiated by WPL against Official Liquidator, wherein this Court
by order dated 17.5.2018 disposed of the petition holding that
WPL was entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the entire investment
and that losses accrued not as a result of business were not
required to be deducted.  Official Liquidator released Rs. 35
crores to WPL. Another Contempt Petition was filed by WPL
alleging non-compliance of order dated 17.5.2018 as refund of
entire investment along with interest had not been made. Union
of India filed Interlocutory Application (IA) in the Contempt
Petition contending that the order dated 17.5.2018 needed to be
recalled as that Contempt Petition in which the order dated
17.5.2018 was passed was not maintainable because due to
non-jointer of necessary parties (CAG and UOI), full facts could
not be brought to the attention of the Court. Further
Miscellaneous Applications and Contempt Petition were filed by
other stakeholders.
Dismissing the Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1207-1208
of 2018 and disposing of the IA  No. 125885 in  Contempt Petition
(Civil) Nos. 1207-1208 of 2018, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court supervised the revival scheme over
a length of time with the object of protecting the interest of all
the stakeholders of Super Bazar. However, Super Bazar could
not be revived. WPL claimed that it had invested a large amount
of money, in spite of which no significant improvement resulted.
The scheme of revival was not executed in the manner envisaged
by this Court. Prima facie the verification made in the CAG report
is pertinent to the present matter and has to be given careful
consideration. The glaring irregularities in accounts pointed out
by the auditors and verified by the CAG require careful scrutiny.
The absence of an opportunity to the Union of India before this
Court on the earlier occasion and the written instructions issued
by the former Official Liquidator preventing the counsel from
appearing have effectively prevented full facts being placed before
this court. The affairs of Super Bazar implicate the interests of
SUPER BAZAR KARAMCHARI DALIT SANGH  v. UNION
OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
diverse stakeholders and the public interest.  Full facts must be
placed before the Court to enable it to decide. [Para 19]
[441-B-D]
2. Moreover, the conduct of the earlier Official Liquidator
in purporting to issue instructions for the release
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.