VINAY PRAKASH SINGH versus SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 15-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
VINAY PRAKASH SINGH
v.
SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 2120 of 2018)
In
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20417 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 15, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, DEEPAK GUPTA AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.2(b), (c) – Dispute between
the petitioner and the respondents in SLP (C) No.20417/17 referred
to international arbitration – As on 31.03.2017, ‘MMS’ & ‘SMS’-
Directors (contemnor nos.9 & 12 and 10 & 13, respectively) of
Oscar Investments Limited (OIL-respondent no.1 in SLP) and RHC
Holding Private Limited (RHC-respondent no.8 in SLP) through
OIL and RHC held 100% stake in Fortis Healthcare Holding
Private Limited (FHHPL) which in turn held majority stake in
Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL)– Petitioner filed enforcement
proceedings in the Delhi High Court for the arbitral award passed
in Singapore holding it entitled to receive Rs.3500 crores approx.
from respondent nos.1-15 – Therein, it filed applications for
restraining the respondents from encumbering their assets – Several
assurances given by the respondents that no action would be taken
to prejudice petitioner’s rights – Petitioner filed contempt petition
before the High Court alleging violation of its orders by which in
effect, OIL & RHC were restrained from reducing their
shareholding in FHL through FHHPL – High Court recorded fifth
assurance given by the respondents – Challenged by the petitioner
in SLP(C) No.20417/17 – On 11.08.2017, status quo was directed
to be maintained w.r.t the shareholding of FHHPL in FHL –
Petitioner filed contempt petition in this Court alleging that the
conduct of the respondents in creating pledge on 14.08.2017 is
violative of the said order – On 31.08.2017, contempt petition
disposed of clarifying that the order dated. 11.08.2017 was in
respect of both the encumbered and unencumbered shares –
Aforesaid orders clarified by order dated. 15.02.2018 – Another
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 89
89
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
order passed on 23.02.2018 stating that interim order dated.
15.02.2018 will continue to hold the field till the High Court
decides the matter– Further, Indiabulls Ventures Limited (IVL), with
which FHHPL maintains a demat account transferred 12,25,000
shares of FHL held by FHHPL to Indiabulls Housing Finance
Limited (IHFL) – Present contempt petition filed alleging that this
was in contempt of the aforesaid orders – Held: Transaction of
12,25,000 shares is out of the unencumbered shares because after
31.03.2018, the encumbered shares were much below 12,25,000–
Official record shows that these shares were not encumbered –
Contemnors failed to place any cogent material on record to show
that these 12,25,000 shares were pledged on or before
31.08.2017– Contemnor nos.1-8, active directors of IHFL & IVL
are guilty of knowingly and wilfully disobeying the orders of this
Court and of committing contempt of Court – To be heard on the
question of sentence – Further directions issued – In the case of
contemnors 9, 10, 12 & 13, they knowingly and willingly lost
control of FHL – Undertakings given to the Delhi High Court as
also the orders of this Court were violated – Delhi High Court will
deal with the issue in so far as the undertakings made before it
are concerned – Contemnor nos.9 & 10 have also wilfully and
contumaciously disobeyed the orders of Supreme Court – Action
for committing criminal contempt could have been taken against
contemnor nos. 9 & 10, but by taking a lenient view of the matter
it is being treated only as civil contempt– To be heard on the
question of sentence – Directions issued – Further, suo moto notice
of contempt also issued – Registry to register fresh contempt
petition w.r.t the violation of the order dated. 14.12.2018 in which
RHC, OIL, ‘MMS’, ‘SMS’ and FHL be arrayed as contemnors.
While issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Contemnor Nos. 1 to 8
The stand of IHFL that no pledge was created after
11.08.2017 is incorrect. The disclosure made on 21.08.2017 by
FHHPL to BSE and NSE clearly discloses that 30,59,260 shares
of FHL held by FHHPL were pledged on 14.08.2017 in favour
of IHFL. This disclosure of 21.08.2017 is a part of the record
and not specifically denied by IHFL. This Court on 11.08.2017
directed that status quo with regard to shareholding of FHHPL
in FHL be maintained. On 31.08.2017 it was clarified that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
order would apply to both encumbered and unencumbered
shares.On 14.08.2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.