AGYAPAUL SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA (SAMB)

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 831 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 23, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2017
                [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1739 OF 2017 ]


AGYAPAUL SINGH                                                  Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA (SAMB)                                     Respondent(s)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.

2.    In the peculiar facts of this case,  it  is  not  necessary  to  issue
notice to the respondent.

3.    The appellant is aggrieved by  the  impugned  order  dated  23.12.2016
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in COCP  No.  2084  of  2016.
According to the High Court, the appellant is to be  proceeded  against  for
violating the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the High  Court.   The  order
dated 01.06.2016 reads as follows :-
      “The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with  liberty  to  avail  the
alternate remedy under the Securitization and  Reconstruction  of  Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,  2002  (in  short  SARFAESI
Act).
2.    The only concession that we are inclined to grant to  the  petitioners
an opportunity to make an application for interim reliefs before  the  Debts
Recovery Tribunal.  For this purpose alone we direct the bank not to  encash
the cheque dated 25.06.2016 till 25.07.2016  and  further  direct  that  the
District Magistrate, Ludhiana shall adjourn the hearing of  the  application
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act till 31.07.2016.  This is  in  view  of
the express undertaking given to the Court that the cheque will be  honoured
upon presentation on or after 25.07.2016.”

4.     It is not in dispute that a cheque for an amount of  Rs.  7.5  crores
(Rupees  Seven  Crores  and  Fifty  Lakhs)  presented  to   the   bank   was
dishonoured.  It is the case of the appellant that only on this fact, he  is
not liable to be proceeded with in proceedings for Contempt  of  Court  Act.
If only there is a willful disobedience, the appellant may be punished.

5.    Whether there is a willful or deliberate  disobedience  of  the  order
passed by the Court is something to be seen from  the  reply  filed  by  the
appellant to the show cause notice.  Even  before  issuing  show  cause,  we
find that the High Court has entered a satisfaction  that  “.....this  court
is not inclined to accept the prayer (to file reply)  as  this  court  finds
prima facie that contempt of court has been committed.”

6.    In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed  by
the High Court.  The High Court shall grant an opportunity to the  appellant
to file his reply and on the reply being filed, the appellant may  be  heard
and only thereafter, the High Court may form an opinion as  to  whether  the
court should proceed against the appellant for Contempt of Court.

7.    In the light of what we have stated above, we request the  High  Court
not to insist upon the personal presence of the  appellant  till  the  Court
passes appropriate orders in  the  light  of  the  reply  furnished  by  the
appellant.

8.    In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                        [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]

      New Delhi;
      January 23, 2017.