URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND versus DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANR. on 10 March 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 3 S.C.R.

AURBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND

v.

DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANR.

(Contempt Petition (C) No. 940 of 2021)

B

In

(Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021)

In

(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021)

CMARCH 10, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act,1971 – Civil contempt – Wilfuldisobedience of orders passed by Court – High Court stayed arbitralDaward passed in arbitral proceedings filed by petitioner againstrespondents-alleged contemnors subject to deposit of an amount –Time period of such deposit was extended by Supreme Court on twooccasions while continuing the order of stay by implication – Pleaof respondents-contemnors that there was no wilful disobedienceand because of financial constraint, they were not in a position toEdeposit the amount as ordered by the High Court and the SupremeCourt – At no point of time earlier, such a plea was taken – Held:On facts, the plea lacked bonafides and was not tenable, being anafterthought – When a party which is required to comply with theterms or directions in an order has not done so within such time asFstipulated in the order, two options are available to the party whichwas required to comply with such order: (a) give an explanation tothe Court as to the circumstances due to which the party could notcomply with the order of the Court; (b) seek for further time tocomply with the order of the Court – If a delay has occurred incomplying with the terms of an order and the party which was toGcomply with the order has not resorted to either of the two aforestatedoptions, then, the party responsible for delay in compliance, maybe held to have committed contempt – Further, irrespective of whetheror not a decree is executable, the question to be considered indetermining whether a case for contempt has been made out was,Hwhether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as would make a fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court – In thecase at hand, the conduct of respondent-contemnors was such aswould justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court– Not only did the contemnors unreasonably delay and default incompliance of orders of Supreme Court without explaining the causefor such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; butthey also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after takingbenefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of thesame – The contemnors cannot, at this juncture, claim that therequirement of deposit was not mandatory, but directory andtherefore non-compliance thereof would not constitute contempt –On facts, respondents-contemnors willfully disobeyed the orderspassed by the Court and were thereby guilty of civil contempt andrendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under provisionsof Contempt of Courts Act – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996– s.34.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt jurisdiction –Invocation of – Powers of the Court – Scope and ambit of – Held:Jurisdiction of a Court under the Act, would not cease, merelybecause the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, isexecutable under law, even without having recourse to contemptproceedings – Contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every casewhere the conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere withthe due course of justice – Contempt is a matter which is betweenthe Court passing the order of which contempt is alleged and thecontemnor; questions as to executability of such order is a questionwhich concerns the parties inter-se – Power of the Court to invokecontempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered by the rights of theparties inter-se.

Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court HELD:1.1 In the instant case, the High Court, by orderdated 08th August, 2019 stayed the arbitral award dated30.08.2018 passed in arbitral proceedings filed by the petitioneragainst the respondents-alleged contemnors subject to thedeposit of an amount. The time period of such deposit has beenextended by this Court on two occasions while continuing theorder of stay by implication. Having taken the advantage of the AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aextended time period, the respondent-contemnor cannot, at thisjuncture, take the plea that non-compliance with the condition ofdeposit would only render the Arbitrator’s Award enforceable andthat such failure to comply would have no consequences underthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [Para 13.1][[1170-B-C]

B1.2. Further, it is trite law that the jurisdiction of a Courtunder the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would not cease, merelybecause the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, isexecutable under law, even without having recourse to contemptproceedings. [Para 13.2][1170-D]

C1.3. Contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every casewhere the conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere withthe due course of justice. Contempt is a matter which is betweenthe Court passing the order of which contempt is alleged and thecontemnor; questions as to executability of such order is aquestion which concerns the parties inter-se. The power of theDCourt to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, alteredby the rights of the parties inter-se. [Para 13.3][1170-E]

2. Now, so far as the case on behalf of the respondents thatthere is no wilful disobedience and because of the financialconstraint, the respondents are not in a position to deposit theEamount as ordered by the High Court vide order dated 08.08.2019and the order passed by this Court is concerned, the same isnothing but an afterthought. At no point of time earlier, such aplea was taken. In the facts and circumstances of the case, sucha stand now lacks bonafides. The stand taken by the respondentsFnow that they are not in a position to deposit the amount and/orcomply with the order passed by the High Court and this Courtbecause of the financial difficulties and therefore there is no wilfuldisobedience by the respondents in not complying with the orderpassed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 and the order passedby this Court dated 28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.G1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021lacks bonafides and the same is not at all acceptable. [Para14][1170-F-G; 1171-C-D]

3.1. When a party which is required to comply with the termsor directions in an order has not done so within such time asstipulated in the order, two options are available to the party whichwas required to comply with such order: (a) give an explanationto the Court as to the circumstances due to which the party couldnot comply with the order of the Court; (b) seek for further timeto comply with the order of the Court. If a delay has occurred incomplying with the terms of an order and the party which was to32 comply with the order has not resorted to either of the twoaforestated options, then, the party responsible for delay incompliance, may be held to have committed contempt. [Para15][1171-D-F]

3.2. Further, irrespective of whether or not a decree isexecutable, the question to be considered by this Court indetermining whether a case for contempt has been made out was,whether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as would makea fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court. [Para15.1][1171-G]

4.1. In the case at hand, the conduct of the respondent-contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contemptjurisdiction of this Court. Not only have the contemnorsunreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the ordersof this Court without explaining the cause for such default, orseeking extension of time for compliance; but they have alsosought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefitof the extended time period granted for compliance of the same.The contemnors cannot, at this juncture, claim that therequirement of deposit was not mandatory, but directory andtherefore non-compliance thereof would not constitute contempt.[Para 16][1171-H; 1172-A-B]

4.2. The respondents have willfully disobeyed the orderpassed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 in Notice of MotionNo. 960 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of2019 and have willfully disobeyed the order dated 28.10.2021passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021 and therebythe respondents are guilty of civil contempt and have rendered A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athemselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisionsof Contempt of Courts Act. [Para 17][1172-C-D]

Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3SCC 373 : [2014] 4 SCR 27; R.N. Dey & Ors. v.Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400B: [2000] 3 SCR 172 – distinguished.

Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (2006) 11 SCC 114: [2006] 3 SCR 1068; Bank of Baroda v. SadruddinHasan Daya (2004) 1 SCC 360 : [2003] 6 Suppl.SCR 764; State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh (1997) 4 SCCC430 : [1997] 1 SCR 850; Maruti Udyog v. MahinderC. Mehta AIR 2008 SC 309 : [2007] 10 SCR 933 –relied on.

Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahamanand Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 739 : [2001] 2 SCR 471; RamDKishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 204 :[2014] 1 SCR 538; Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United IndiaInsurance Company Limited & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC770 : [2010] 13 SCR 599; Jolly George Varghese &Anr. v. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 : [1980]2 SCR 913; Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive OfficerE& Ors. v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr.(2022) 1 SCC 101; Rita Markandey v. Surjit SinghArora, (1996) 6 SCC 14 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 56 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

F[2000] 3 SCR 172[2001] 2 SCR 471[2014] 1 SCR 538 [2010] 13 SCR 599G[1980] 2 SCR 913(2022) 1 SCC 101

H

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND v. DHARMESH S.

INHERENT APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition(C) No. 940 Of 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 Of 2021 inSpecial Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021.

C

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2021 and subsequentorder dated 28.10.2021 of this Court and dated 08.08.2019 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Bombay in Notice of Motion No.960 of 2019 inCommercial Arbitration Petition No.55 of 2019.

Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Puneet Singh Bindra, Neeraj Kumar,Dhiraj Mhetre, Ms. Simran Jeet, Satyasrikant Vutha, Sanampreet Singh,Sunny Sachin Rawat, Advs. for the Petitioner.

D

Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Ashok Paranjpe, Kunal Vajani, KunalMimani, Shreyas Lele, Shubhang Tandon, Sugandha Yadav, Advs. forthe Respondents.

E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitionerherein – Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund – the Award Creditor inwhose favour there is an award passed by the learned Arbitrator topunish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 forwilful disobedience of the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by this Courtin Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021 and the subsequentorder dated 28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668of 2021 in the very same Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021.

F

G

2. Before considering the submissions made by learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the chronologicaldates and events leading up to the filing of this contempt petition arerequired to be referred to and considered, which are as under:- H

A2.1 That by Arbitral Award dated 30.08.2018 passed in arbitralproceedings filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents - allegedcontemnors, the learned Arbitrator awarded specific performance ofthe Share Purchase Agreement and held that the petitioner is entitled torecover an amount of Rs. 78,33,37,500/- with interest at the rate of 18%p.a. with effect from 20.12.2014 till realization.B

A

2.2 Challenging the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, therespondent herein preferred Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of2019 before the High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1996”). In thesaid arbitration petition, the respondents herein – original applicants tookCout a Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 praying for stay of the award.

2.3 The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of thesaid Notice of Motion in terms of the prayer clause “a” on the conditionthat the respondents herein deposit 50% of the awarded sum withintwelve weeks. The learned Single Judge also observed that if such depositDis not made within the time prescribed, the interim stay granted shallstand vacated without further reference to the Court. Simultaneously,the petitioner was also directed to deposit 50% of its shareholding in therespondent No. 2 company within one week of deposit of amount. Thelearned Single Judge also made it clear that if the respondents – originalEapplicants commit any default in making payments as directed, therespondent (applicant herein) is not required to deposit such shares.

2.4 It appears that even before the application under Section 34of the Act of 1996 challenging the award was made, the Award Creditorhad filed the execution petition before the High Court being CommercialFExecution Application No. 2908 of 2018. After the order was passed bythe learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2019, a Notice of Motion No. 960of 2019 was filed. The learned Single Judge being the Executing Courtpassed the order dated 18.11.2019 in the Chamber Summons No. 357 of2019 taken out by the Award Creditor. The learned Single Judge directedthe respondent herein to file the disclosure affidavit declaring their assetsGvide order dated 18.11.2019. The order dated 18.11.2019 was, however,not complied with by the respondents and repeated extensions weresought.

2.5 That in the meantime, respondents herein instituted CommercialAppeal No. 521 of 2019 challenging the order dated 08.08.2019 by which,H

while staying the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the High Courtdirected them to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. It is required tobe noted that during the pendency of the Commercial Appeal No. 521 of2019, the respondents herein i.e., the contemnors – appellants beforethe High Court prayed for a number of extensions to deposit the amountas directed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.08.2019.

2.6 The aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainablevide order dated 29.07.2021 and the interim application was also disposedof. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred special leave petitionbefore this Court challenging the order dated 08.08.2019 in Notice ofMotion No. 960 of 2019 and in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55of 2019. That by order dated 17.09.2021, this Court dismissed the saidspecial leave petition on merits. However, a prayer was made on behalfof the respondents herein – petitioners before this Court to grant furthereight weeks’ time from 17.09.2021 to comply with the order dated08.08.2019 by which they would deposit 50% of the amount as awardedby the Arbitrator. This Court granted further eight weeks’ time as prayed.As the order dated 17.09.2021 was passed ex- parte and without noticeto the applicant herein – respondents in special leave petition, the applicantherein preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 to recallthe order dated 17.09.2021 by which further eight weeks’ time wasgranted to the respondents – petitioners before this Court.

2.7 It was the case on behalf of the applicants that the respondentshave no intention to comply with the order and deposit 50% of the amountawarded by the learned Arbitrator and further eight weeks’ time is soughtonly to kill time as there is no intention to deposit the amount and/orcomply with the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the High Court.

2.8 That after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respective parties including the counsel on behalf of the respondents,this Court passed an order dated 28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous ApplicationNo. 1668 of 2021 of which also non- compliance is alleged. By orderdated 28.10.2021, this Court had directed the respondents herein –petitioners before this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of2021 to comply with and deposit the amount to be deposited as per theorder passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 positively and withinthe time granted by this Court (eight weeks). This Court also furtherobserved that non-compliance of the same shall be treated very seriouslyand non-deposit of the amount as directed by the High Court in the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aimpugned order shall be treated as non-compliance of the order of thisCourt and also having serious consequences.

2.9 Despite the specific directions issued by this Court, therespondents neither complied with the order passed by the High Courtdated 08.08.2019 nor complied with the order passed by this Court datedB28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in SpecialLeave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021.

2.10 That the applicant herein served a legal notice upon therespondents dated 16.11.2021 by which the respondents were calledupon to comply with the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the HighCCourt as well as the orders passed by this Court dated 17.09.2021 and28.10.2021. In the said legal notice, it was specifically mentioned that ifthe aforesaid orders are not complied with, the petitioners shall beconstrained to proceed further to initiate appropriate proceedings forwilful disobedience of orders passed by the Court. One other legal noticewas served upon the respondents informing that the time granted by thisDCourt in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021 to comply withthe order dated 08.08.2019 had expired. Despite the above, neither theorder passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 was complied withnor the orders passed by this Court dated 17.09.2021 and 28.10.2021was obeyed. Instead, having realized that the non-compliance of theEorder dated 28.10.2021 may invite serious consequences, the respondentsherein filed Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 on 17.01.2022requesting to recall the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court inMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021.

2.11 By a detailed order dated 25.01.2022, this Court had dismissedFthe said application by which the respondents herein had requested recallof the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.1668 of 2021.

2.12 At this stage, it is required to be noted that a number ofsubmissions were made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofGthe respondents – applicants before this Court in MiscellaneousApplication No. 61 of 2022 on the directions issued by this Court videorder dated 28.10.2021, which are again made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondents before this Court in the presentproceedings and all the submissions were dealt with by this Court whiledeciding Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022.H

2.13 At this stage, it is required to be noted that prior to filing ofthe Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022, the petitioners had alreadyfiled the present application alleging disobedience of the order dated28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021, whichwas filed on 18.11.2021 in which this Court directed to issue notice uponthe respondents vide order dated 10.12.2021 making it returnable on10.01.2022 and having been served with the notice of this Court in thepresent contempt petitions, the respondents filed the aforesaidMiscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 and have prayed to recall theorder dated 28.10.2021, which as observed hereinabove has alreadybeen dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2022.

3. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the respondents – alleged contemnors has as such reiterated whatwas submitted earlier while deciding Miscellaneous Application No. 61of 2022.

3.1 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that assuch there is no direction issued by this Court of which non- complianceis alleged. Elaborating the same he submitted that by order dated17.09.2021, this Court while dismissing the special leave petition preferredby the respondents extended the time to comply with the order dated08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that thesaid order dated 08.08.2019 was an interim order passed on Notice ofMotion by which, while granting stay of the award passed by the learnedArbitrator, the respondents were directed to deposit 50% of the amountawarded. It is submitted that in the order dated 08.08.2019 itself, thelearned Single Judge specifically observed that on non-compliance ofthe same, the interim stay granted would stand vacated. It is contendedthat by not deposing 50% of the awarded amount within the stipulatedperiod of time and the extended period of time, there shall not be anystay of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and therefore thesaid award shall be executable and the execution proceedings are requiredto be heard and proceeded further. It is therefore urged that non-compliance of the order dated 08.08.2019 does not warrant anyproceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the order dated08.08.2019 cannot be said to be a mandatory order or a direction todeposit 50% of the amount awarded. It is also submitted that the orderdated 17.09.2021 cannot be said to be any order or direction issued bythis Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3.2 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate has taken us to Section36 of the Act of 1996 in support of his submission that on non- deposit ofthe amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal, the award is executable. Itis submitted that as such an execution application is already filed andpending.B3.3 It is further submitted that when the petitioner filedMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 seeking recall of the orderdated 17.09.2021 passed by this Court, even the petitioner did not construethe condition of deposit to be a mandatory direction to deposit.

3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Divan, learned Senior AdvocateCappearing on behalf of the respondents that the order dated 17.09.2021was not a mandatory order directing the respondents to deposit 50% ofthe amount and the order dated 17.09.2021 was an order extending thetime in favour of the respondents to deposit the amount as per the orderpassed by the learned Single Judge. Even the subsequent order dated28.10.2021 passed on an application filed by the petitioner to recall theDorder dated 17.09.2021, cannot be said to be a mandatory order and/ordirection, the non- compliance of which warrants any proceedings underthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3.5 It is further urged by Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the respondents that on non-compliance of theEorder passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2019 by which onnon-deposit of 50% of the amount, the interim stay granted stood vacatedand therefore, the award is to be executed for which the executionproceedings are pending and the contempt of court proceeding is not theremedy available to the petitioner. It is submitted that as held by thisFCourt in the case of R.N. Dey and Ors. Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanikand Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 400, the weapon of contempt cannot be usedfor purposes of executing a decree or implementing an order for whichlaw provides appropriate procedure.

3.6 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofGthe respondents has contended that as such there is no wilful disobedienceof any of the orders passed by this Court and/or even the High Court. Infact, the respondents have made honest endeavors to comply with thecondition of deposit. However, despite the best efforts during the eightweeks’ time granted by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have beenunable to comply with the condition of deposit in view of the grave andHunsurmountable challenges / difficulties being faced by the respondents.

3.7 It is further submitted that the dispute is in the nature of acommercial dispute and negotiations are going on and final figures are tobe settled. That the respondents have already given a demand draft ofRs. 5 crores to show their bonafides and are ready to submit a furthersum of Rs. 5 crores with the Registry of the High Court. It is submittedthat therefore, when there is no wilful disobedience, the present contemptproceedings be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of thisCourt in the case of Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. Vs. Sayed HasiburRahaman and Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 739 (Paras 13 & 14); Ram KishanVs. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 204 (Paras 11 to 15); DineshKumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited &Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 770 (Para 17); Jolly George Varghese &Anr. Vs. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 (Paras 1, 2, 4, 6,10 & 11); and Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC101 (Paras 8 & 9).

4. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the petitioner has submitted that as on today, a total sum of Rs.190 crores is due and payable by the respondents pursuant to the awardpassed by the learned Arbitrator, which was passed four years back.

4.1 It is submitted by Shri Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate thatright from the filing of the execution proceedings by the petitioner, atevery stage, the respondents have delayed the execution of the awardon one ground or the other either, by filing Notice of Motion and obtaininginterim stay of the award on condition of deposit of 50% of the awardedamount and thereafter getting extensions even during the pendency ofthe appeal and making the Court believe that they will deposit the amountas per the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2019.It is submitted that during all these periods, the respondents have takenadvantage of the extensions sought by them. It is submitted that thereforeit would not be open for the respondents to now say that on non-depositof the 50% of the amount as ordered by the learned Single Judge in hisorder dated 08.08.2019, the award is executable.

4.2 It is submitted by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the petitioner that even the respondents have notcomplied with the order passed by the High Court in the ChamberSummons taken out by the petitioner by which the respondents weredirected to disclose their assets. It is submitted that despite a number of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aopportunities given by the High Court, the respondents have not compliedwith the direction issued by the High Court by which the respondentswere directed to disclose their assets, which they declared after a periodof almost two and a half years. It is, therefore, submitted that all throughoutthe conduct on the part of the respondents suggest that respondents arein the habit of not complying with the orders/directions issued by theBCourt(s).

4.3 It is also submitted by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that despite the dismissalof the Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022, the respondents havethe audacity to now say that the order dated 28.10.2021 cannot be saidCto be a mandatory direction. He has taken us to the averments in theMiscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 in which the very respondentshave stated that the order dated 28.10.2021 is a mandatory order/direction.It is submitted that by taking such a stand, the respondents haveaggravated their contumacious conduct.D

4.4 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondentsthat, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2019 andthe subsequent order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 17.09.2021cannot be said to be a direction and if there is non-compliance of thesame, the consequences under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 shall followEand the award thereafter will have to be executed, it is vehementlysubmitted by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the petitioner that the non-compliance alleged is not only ofthe order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court and the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Courtbut the non-compliance alleged is of the order dated 28.10.2021 also byFwhich the specific mandatory direction has been issued by this Courtdirecting the respondents to deposit the amount as ordered by the learnedSingle Judge. It is submitted that in the said order itself, it has beenspecifically mentioned that non-compliance of the directions would behaving serious consequences. It is submitted that despite the above, theGrespondents have not deposited the amount as ordered by the learnedSingle Judge vide order dated 08.08.2019.

4.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondentsthat there is no wilful disobedience and that despite their best efforts,they are not in a position to deposit the amount as ordered due to financialHcrunch and other adverse circumstances, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner that the aforesaid stand now taken is nothing but anafterthought and as such even when the Miscellaneous Application No.61 of 2022 was filed, it was not the case on behalf of the respondentsthat due to financial constraint and/or adverse circumstances, they arenot in a position to deposit the amount. It is submitted that even therespondents can sell the development rights worth Rs. 100 crores andthey have the financial capacity but have willfully disobeyed the ordersof this Court.

4.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisionsof this Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang &Anr., (2006) 11 SCC 114 (Paras 24, 25, 30 & 32); Bank of BarodaVs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 360 (Paras 12 &14); and Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora, (1996) 6 SCC 14(Para 12), it is prayed to suitably punish respondent No. 1 for wilfuldisobedience of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated28.10.2021.

5. Heard learned senior counsel for the respective parties at length.

5. Heard learned senior counsel for the respective parties at length.

6. In the present petition, it is prayed to punish the respondentsunder the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedienceof the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by this Court in Special LeavePetition (C) No. 14724 of 2021 and also the order dated 28.10.2021passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special LeavePetition (C) No. 14724 of 2021. For immediate reference the said ordersare extracted as under:

Order dated 17.09.2021

“Delay condoned.

Having heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioners and considering the fact that theimpugned order passed by the High Court is in a notice of motionapplication and an interim order, we see no reason to interferewith the impugned order.

The Special Leave petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

However, as prayed, we grant further eight weeks timefrom today to the applicants to comply with the impugned orderpassed by the High Court.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AOrder dated 28.10.2021

“Having heard Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 herein/Applicants -Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund and Shri Kunal Vajani,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitionersBbefore this Court, we dispose of the present application with anobservation that the petitioners before this Court in SLP (C) No.14724/2021 shall have to comply with and deposit the amount tobe deposited as per the impugned order passed by the High Courtpositively and within the time granted by this Court and non-compliance of the same shall be treated very seriously and non-Cdeposit of the amount as directed by the High Court in the impugnedorder shall be treated as non-compliance of our order also havinga serious consequences.

With this, the present application stands disposed of.”

D

D7. It is the case on behalf of the respondents – alleged contemnorsthat by the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 17.09.2021 in SpecialLeave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021, this Court while dismissing thesaid special leave petition has granted further eight weeks’ time to theoriginal applicants to comply with the order passed by the High Courtdated 08.08.2019 by which the High Court passed a conditional stayEorder in favour of the original applicants – respondents herein and todeposit 50% of the awarded amount, failing which the stay to standvacated. It is the case on behalf of the respondents that on non-complianceof the order dated 08.08.2019, the necessary consequences under Section36 of the Act of 1996 shall follow and the proceedings to execute theFaward has to be proceeded further. It is submitted therefore that as theorder dated 08.08.2019 cannot be said to be a direction and in view ofthe remedy available to the applicants to proceed further with theexecution proceedings, no proceedings under the Contempt of CourtsAct for disobedience of the order dated 08.08.2019 and/or the orderpassed by this Court dated 17.09.2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.G14724 of 2021 shall be maintainable. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case and considering the conduct on the part of the respondents, thissubmission cannot be accepted.

8. It is to be noted that there is an award dated 30.08.2018 infavour of the applicant and the learned Arbitrator had awarded specificH

performance of the Share Purchase Agreement and held that the applicantis entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 78,33,37,500/- with interest at therate of 18% p.a. with effect from 20.12.2014 till realization and had alsoawarded Rs. 50 lakhs against the respondent company. Thereafter theAward Creditor had filed the Execution Petition on 10.12.2018 and sincethen, the respondents have successfully avoided the execution of theaward till date by initiating proceedings one after another and by gettingextensions of the interim order passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019passed on Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 and in CommercialArbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019. After the order dated 08.08.2019,the respondents sought a number of extensions which the High Courtgranted on the belief that the respondents will deposit the amount asordered vide order dated 08.08.2019. Thus, the respondents took thebenefit of the extensions granted by the Court and the respondents weregranted the extension of time to make the deposit as per the order dated08.08.2019, which were granted on their requests.

Having taken the benefit of the extensions for a period ofapproximately two years and more, thereafter, it is not open for therespondents to contend that since they have not deposited the amount asper the order dated 08.08.2019, necessary consequences under Section36 of the Act of 1996 shall follow and the execution proceedings have tobe proceeded further. As observed hereinabove, the executionproceedings have been delayed in view of the interim order dated08.08.2019 and the subsequent extensions granted by the High Court,which were at the behest of the respondents. The respondents hereinhave had the benefit of extensions of time being granted for depositingthe amount as per order dated 08.08.2019 and consequently havesuccessfully obstructed the execution proceedings for over two years.Having done so, respondents cannot now be permitted to contend thatthere was no mandatory direction to comply with the order dated08.08.2019 passed by the High Court. Such a conduct on the part of therespondents is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the Court,which is deprecated. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even theorder passed by the High Court passed in Chamber Summons directingthe respondents to disclose their assets was even not complied with fora period of approximately two years. This demonstrates the intentionand the conduct on the part of the respondents to disregard and disrespectthe orders passed by the High Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that it is alleged thatthere is a wilful disobedience and/or non-compliance of the order passedby this Court dated 28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021, which isreproduced hereinabove.B10. After the present contempt proceedings were initiated and A

B10. After the present contempt proceedings were initiated andthe respondents were served with notice in the present proceedings therespondents thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022to recall the order dated 28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021. The verysubmissions, which are now made were made at the time of hearing ofCthe Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 and by a detailed orderdated 25.01.2022, this Court dismissed the said application. The orderpassed in Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 is reproducedhereinbelow:- “1. The present miscellaneous application has been preferred byDthe applicants – original petitioners with a prayer to recall orderdated 28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668of 2021.

2. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared onbehalf of the applicants and Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned SeniorEAdvocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent.

2.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the applicants has made the following submissions in supportof his prayer to recall order dated 28.10.2021 passed in M.A. No.1668/2021:

F

i) that Miscellaneous Application No. 1668/2021 itself was notmaintainable as the same was filed in a disposed of matter;

ii) that no notice was issued to the applicants, i.e., the originalpetitioners in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668/2021 and thatno reply was filed on behalf of the applicants; and G

iii) in a special leave petition filed by the applicants, such a directioncould not have been issued by this Court as passed vide orderdated 28.10.2021. It is submitted, assuming that the applicantshad not complied with the order passed by the High Court dated08.08.2019, which was impugned before this Court, and theH

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND v. DHARMESH S.JAIN AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

amount was not deposited even within the extended period oftime, as extended by this Court, in that case, the only consequencewould be that there was no stay of the arbitral award and that theexecution proceedings are to be proceeded further. Therefore,the direction issued in order dated 28.10.2021 directing theapplicants – original petitioners to deposit the amount to bedeposited as per the order of the High Court positively and withinthe time granted by this Court and non-compliance of the sameshall be treated very seriously and non- deposit of the amount asdirected by the High Court in the impugned order shall be treatedas noncompliance of our order also having a serious consequences,was not at all warranted and/or such an order could not havebeen passed.

3. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the applicants at length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that when this Courtpassed order dated 28.10.2021, Shri Kunal Vajani, learnedadvocate appeared on behalf of the applicants – original petitionersand this Court passed order dated 28.10.2021 after hearing thelearned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicants – originalpetitioners. A copy of M.A. No. 1668/2021 was served upon thecounsel and thereafter he appeared and after hearing Shri KunalVajani, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the applicants,this Court passed order dated 28.10.2021. At that time, neitherany request was made to adjourn the matter so as to enable theapplicants to file reply nor any objection was raised with respectto non-maintainability of M.A. No. 1668/2021. Therefore, now itis not open for the applicants to make a grievance with respect tonon- maintainability of M.A. No. 1668/2021 and/or that no noticewas issued.

4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the presentapplication is nothing but an afterthought and only with a view toget out the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent byway of Contempt Petition No. 940/2021. It is to be noted thatorder dated 28.10.2021 was passed in the presence of the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. Learned counselwho appeared on behalf of the applicants was heard. The presentapplication to recall order dated 28.10.2021 has been preferred

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

after a period of almost two and a half months, i.e., on 17.01.2022and that too after this Court issued notice in the contemptproceedings and after the notice of contempt petition was servedupon the applicants. Therefore, the present application is, as such,nothing but an afterthought and only with a view to get out thecontempt proceedings, which have been initiated and filed as farback as on 18.11.2021 and notice was issued on 10.12.2021.

5. Even otherwise on merits also, order dated 28.10.2021 passedin M.A. No. 1668/2021 is not required to be recalled. It is to benoted that the special leave petition was arising out of the orderpassed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No.960/2019 in CommercialArbitration Petition No. 55/2019. Notice of motion was madeabsolute in terms of the prayer clause (a) on the condition that theapplicants herein shall deposit 50% of the awarded sum withintwelve weeks from 08.08.2019. Time granted by the High Courtwas extended from time to time at the instance of the applicantsherein but the applicants did not deposit the amount and prolongedthe matter and even the execution of the award. That thereafterafter getting extensions the applicants did not deposit the amount,belatedly, the applicants preferred the present special leave petitionbefore this Court on 20.08.2021 with delay. Still, this Courtcondoned the delay ex-parte and granted further eight weeks’time from 17.09.2021 to comply with the order passed by theHigh Court dated 08.08.2019, as prayed by the learned counselappeared on behalf of the applicants.

6. As order dated 17.09.2021 was passed ex-parte and withoutnotice to the respondent, respondent preferred M.A. No. 1668/2021 to recall order dated 17.09.2021 contending, inter alia, thatall attempts are made on behalf of the applicants to delay theexecution and even further eight weeks’ time was sought only tokill the time and there is no intention to deposit the amount and/orcomply with order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the High Court.Therefore, having heard learned counsel for the respective partiesand considering the apprehensions on behalf of the respondentthat extension of time is sought only to kill the time and delay thematter further and there is no intention to comply with order dated08.08.2019 and that the applicants though sufficient indulgence JAIN AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

have been shown by way of extension of time by the High Court,the amount has not been deposited and therefore in the peculiarfacts and circumstances of the case, we passed the order dated28.10.2021. Therefore, when order dated 28.10.2021 was passedin the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same isnot required to be recalled, which was passed after hearing thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants also.

7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even after orderdated 17.09.2021, by which a further eight weeks’ time wasgranted, the original petitioners – applicants herein have notcomplied with the order passed by the High Court for which theysought extension. This shows the conduct on the part of theapplicants. Even thereafter, there is no application for extensionof time.

Having taken the advantage/benefit of order dated17.09.2021 of extension of time to comply with the order passedby the High Court, thereafter it would not be open for the applicantsto contend that on noncompliance the necessary consequenceunder the Arbitration Act may follow and the execution proceedingsmay have to be proceeded further. Be that as it may, when orderdated 28.10.2021 has been passed after hearing the learned counselfor both the parties and as observed hereinabove on consideringthe apprehensions on the part of the respondent that the applicantshave no intention to comply with the order passed by the HighCourt and they just want to delay the proceedings, order dated28.10.2021 has been passed. Therefore, no case is made out torecall order dated 28.10.2021 passed in M.A. No. 1668/2021.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent application stands dismissed.”

11. Therefore, once Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 torecall the order dated 28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668of 2021 is dismissed, the respondents had to comply with the order dated28.10.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021. Evenotherwise, the respondents were required to comply with order dated28.10.2021.

12. Despite there being a specific direction issued by this Court inthe order dated 28.10.2021 directing the respondents to comply with anddeposit the amount to be deposited as per the order passed by the High A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt dated 08.08.2019 positively and within the time granted by thisCourt by order dated 17.09.2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724of 2021, the respondents have the audacity to submit before this Courtthat no direction has been issued by this Court in the order dated28.10.2021. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in theMiscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022, it was the specific case onBbehalf of the respondents herein that by virtue of the order dated28.10.2021, the condition of deposit has been converted into a mandatorydirection of this Court. Therefore, it was the specific case on behalf ofthe respondents that the order dated 28.10.2021 is a mandatory directionand therefore it was prayed to recall the order dated 28.10.2021. Then,Chow thereafter the respondents can be permitted to say that the orderdated 28.10.2021 is not a mandatory direction? By taking such a standas such the respondents have aggravated the contempt and theircontumacious conduct.

13. In the order dated 28.10.2021, there is a specific directionDissued by this Court directing the respondents herein – original petitionersin special leave petition to comply with and deposit the amount to bedeposited as per the order passed by the High Court positively and withinthe time granted by this Court (eight weeks) as mentioned in the orderdated 17.09.2021. Moreover, it was specifically observed by this Courtthat non-compliance of the said order shall be treated very seriously andEnon-deposit of the amount as directed by the High Court shall be treatedas non-compliance of the order of this Court and also having a seriousconsequence. Despite the above, even the order dated 28.10.2021 inMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 has not been complied withby the respondents. On the contrary, despite the specific direction issuedFin the order dated 28.10.2021 and the dismissal of MiscellaneousApplication No. 61 of 2022 vide order dated 25.01.2022, the respondentshave continued to their abrasive attitude of non-compliance anddisobedience and by making the same submissions, which were madeearlier which as such were rejected by a detailed order. Despite the

direction/order passed by this Court in the order dated 28.10.2021 inGMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021, there is a disobedience/non- compliance of the same and in that view of the matter, the decisionsrelied upon by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the respondents on the alternative remedy available in the formof execution etc. are not of any assistance nor applicable having regardHto the facts of the case on hand.

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND v. DHARMESH S.JAIN AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

13.1 In order to buttress his contention that non-compliance withthe condition of deposit would only render the Arbitrator’s Awardenforceable and contempt proceedings ought not to have been initiatedfor non-compliance with such condition which was not mandatory innature, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-contemnor cited the following case law:

i)Sudhir Vasudeva vs. M. George Ravishekaran – [(2014)3 SCC 373] wherein, this Court observed that a Courtexercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orderin relation to which contempt has been alleged. That theCourt hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scopeof its inquiry to such directions which are explicit in thejudgment or order of which contempt has been alleged.

We are of the view that this judgment would not, in anyway, come to the aid of the respondent-contemnors because,in whatever manner the orders of which contempt is alleged,are viewed, the orders state in unequivocal terms that thecontemnor is required to deposit the amount, within suchperiod as specified in the respective orders. The scope ofcontempt, however narrow, would enable this Court toinvoke jurisdiction under the Act to redress a situation suchas the instant one, wherein the orders of which contempthas alleged, expressly and clearly record that the contemnorwas required to deposit the amounts specified therein. Thisdirection under the orders, could not be interpret in anyother manner.

ii)R.N. Dey & Ors. vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. –[(2000) 4 SCC 400] wherein this Court held that theweapon of initiating contempt proceedings could not be usedfor execution of a decree or implementation of an order.That is, a Court should not invoke contempt jurisdiction,where alternate remedies are available to secure the termsof an order.

We are mindful of the fact that contempt proceedings should notbe of the nature of ‘execution proceedings in disguise.’ However, wehold that the case law cited supra would not come to the aid of the

A

B

C

F

G

H

Acontemnor herein as the facts of the said case were significantly differentfrom the case at hand. In the said case, no stay was operating on thedecree of which contempt was alleged. Therefore, the decree-holdertherein could very well initiate execution proceedings. However, in theinstant case, the High Court, by order dated 08[th] August, 2019 stayedthe Award subject to the deposit of an amount. The time period of suchBdeposit has been extended by this Court on two occasions while continuingthe order of stay by implication. Having taken the advantage of theextended time period, the respondent-contemnor cannot, at this juncture,take the plea that non-compliance with the condition of deposit wouldonly render the Arbitrator’s Award enforceable and that such failure toCcomply would have no consequences under the Contempt of CourtsAct, 1971.

13.2 Further, it is trite law that the jurisdiction of a Court under theAct, would not cease, merely because the order or decree of whichcontempt is alleged, is executable under law, even without having recourseDto contempt proceedings.

13.3 Contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every case wherethe conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere with the duecourse of justice; vide Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang – [(2006)11 SCC 114. Contempt is a matter which is between the Court passingEthe order of which contempt is alleged and the contemnor; questions asto executability of such order is a question which concerns the partiesinter-se. The power of the Court to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not,in any way, altered by the rights of the parties inter-se vide Bank ofBaroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya – [(2004) 1 SCC 360].F14. Now, so far as the case on behalf of the respondents thatthere is no wilful disobedience and because of the financial constraint,the respondents are not in a position to deposit the amount as ordered bythe High Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 and the order passed by thisCourt is concerned, the same is nothing but an afterthought. At no pointof time earlier, such a plea was taken. In the facts and circumstances ofGthe case, such a stand now lacks bonafides. All efforts are being madeby the respondents to get out of the order passed by the High Courtdated 08.08.2019 and the order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2021 inMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 14724 of 2021. If the bonafides of the respondents were clearHand they genuinely wanted to abide by the order passed by the High court and this Court, but could not deposit because of the financialdifficulties, in that case, they ought to have straightaway pleaded theirfinancial difficulties and ought not to have taken the stand, which wastaken in Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2022 and even which areonce again taken now.

As observed hereinabove, even the respondents disclosed theirassets after a period of approximately two years from the date of thepassing of the order passed by the High Court in Chamber Summons.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondentsnow that they are not in a position to deposit the amount and/or complywith the order passed by the High Court and this Court because of thefinancial difficulties and therefore there is no wilful disobedience by therespondents in not complying with the order passed by the High Courtdated 08.08.2019 and the order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2021 inMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 14724 of 2021 lacks bonafides and the same is not at allacceptable by us.

15. When a party which is required to comply with the terms ordirections in an order has not done so within such time as stipulated inthe order, two options are available to the party which was required tocomply with such order: (a) give an explanation to the Court as to thecircumstances due to which the party could not comply with the order ofthe Court; (b) seek for further time to comply with the order of theCourt. If a delay has occurred in complying with the terms of an orderand the party which was to comply with the order has not resorted toeither of the two aforestated options, then, the party responsible fordelay in compliance, may be held to have committed contempt; videState of Bihar vs. Subhash Singh - [(1997) 4 SCC 430]

15.1 Further, the decision of this Court in Maruti Udyog vs.Mahinder C. Mehta – AIR 2008 SC 309 suggests that irrespective ofwhether or not a decree is executable, the question to be considered bythis Court in determining whether a case for contempt has been madeout was, whether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as wouldmake a fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court.

16. Applying the legal propositions discussed supra, to the factsof the case at hand, we are of the view that the conduct of the respondent-contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aof this Court. Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed anddefaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explainingthe cause for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance;but they have also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even aftertaking benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of thesame. The contemnors cannot, at this juncture, claim that the requirementBof deposit was not mandatory, but directory and therefore non-compliancethereof would not constitute contempt.

17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we areof the firm view that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orderpassed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960Cof 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019 and havewillfully disobeyed the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court inMiscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 14724 of 2021 and thereby the respondents are guilty of civilcontempt and have rendered themselves liable for suitable punishmentDunder the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents, moreparticularly, respondent No.1, is hereby held guilty for the contempt ofthis Court for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the High Courtdated 08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 in CommercialArbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019 and specifically for disobedience ofthe order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in MiscellaneousEApplication No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724of 2021 and are held liable to be punished suitably under the provisionsof the Contempt of Courts Act. Now, the respondents shall be heard onsentence.

FBibhuti Bhushan Bose(Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)

Contempt Petition disposed of.

G

H