Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Court Has Heard Sri V.R. Reddy ... vs Unknown on 31 July, 2023
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
CONTEMPT CASE No.545 OF 2021
And
CONTEMPT CASE No.154 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
This Court has heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2) With the consent of both the learned counsel
contempt applications were taken up for hearing. The
arguments were advanced in C.C.No.545 of 2021.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this Court disposed of two Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.3378 of
2019 and 3376 of 2019 directing the respondent to pay sums
due to the petitioner's society along with interest thereof at
8% simple from the date of invoice till the date of payment.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the respondent did not comply with the order of this
Court the present Contempt Applications are filed. Learned
counsel points out that after an order was passed by this
Court on 17.10.2019 the petitioner waited for a reasonable
period of time and then issued a lawyer's notice on
19.11.2020 demanding the amount due with interest.
Thereafter, the contempt application is filed. It is his
contention that the respondent has paid the principal amount
of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 30.03.2021 and have not paid the
interest. He contends that since payment is made in part
after the initiation of contempt the respondent should be
punished for willful disobedience.
5) Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent relies upon the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent. He points out that the respondent
has joined in this particular office on 03.06.2020 and has
been transferred on 27.07.2021. In the interim period he had
acted with due diligence and ensured that principal sum of
Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been paid. It is, therefore, submitted
that there is no willful disobedience. It is also pointed out
that the respondent is working for a society which supplies
material to Government departments. Since a huge sum of
money is due from various departments, apart from money
due from its counterpart Telangana for material supply prior
to the writ petition, the respondent employer society was
unable to secure the money and in turn honoured the
payment. It is his contention that in these difficult
circumstances a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid and the
balance could not be paid. Learned counsel also submits that
as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, contempt is
filed one year after the order was pronounced and, therefore,
he contends that the contempt itself is barred by time.
6) As far as the current respondent is concerned, this
Court notices that the order in question was passed on
17.10.2019. The respondent took charge on 03.06.2020,
which is after the judgment was passed. Record reveals and
it is also admitted that a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid
on 30.03.2021. As far as the other aspect of interest is
concerned it appears that there is a genuine inability to pay
because of dues from various departments. Counter affidavit
itself does spell out that Rs.179.06 crores are due from
various departments and further a sum of Rs.54.13 crores is
due from TSCO. In these circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that the respondent cannot be said to be guilty of
"deliberate disobedience" of this Court's order. This financial
difficulty is explained even during the course of writ petition.
The impugned order passed in the writ petition also points
out the financial difficulties, that the respondent therein was
facing, including the dues from the other departments etc. In
the light of the above and in these circumstances it cannot be
said that there is a deliberate and conscious violation of the
court's order. A genuine difficulty in making the complete
payment despite efforts, which is not controverted in any way
like in the present case cannot be said to a willful default.
The plea is also supported by some data and is the consistent
stand of the respondent.
7) As far as the issue of the period of limitation is
concerned learned counsel for the respondent had laid heavy
stress on the same. Among the judgments cited Pallav
Sheth v. Custodian1 is the leading judgment. In this case
after considering the law on the subject it is pointed out that
the period of limitation under Section 20 of the Act
commenced from the date on which the contempt that is
alleged is committed. The period of limitation is one year from
this date. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India also the order of the Court was dated 24.08.1994 and
(2001) 7 SC 549
the application for punishment to contempt was filed on
18.06.1998 (paragraph 7). In paragraph 46 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India noted that the custodian received
intimation of the clandestine transfer of funds on 05.05.1998.
Thereafter, on 18.06.1998 the petition was filed for initiating
the contempt action. It was held to be within time. In
paragraph 28 it was held that mere issuance of a notice by
the Court to the respondent to show cause in the contempt
case is not the starting point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India held it is only when the Court has formed a prima facie
opinion by application of mind on the facts of the case it can
be said that proceedings for contempt are initiated. Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India clearly held that the result of the
conscious application of the mind is important. In the case
on hand, therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is ex
facie barred by time. Even otherwise, this Court notices that
after the order was passed in the writ petition on 17.10.2019,
the writ petitioner issued a notice on 19.11.2020, which was
served on the respondent on 23.11.2020. The contempt was
moved before this Court in February, March, 2021. It is also
to be noted that this Court while disposing the writ did not fix
any period within which the payment is to be made. When
time is not so fixed it should be performed within a
reasonable time. The writ petitioner waited till 19.11.2020
and issued a notice which was served on 23.11.2020.
Inaction, thereafter, can be said to be as disobedience of the
Court's order for time to commence to run. Therefore, the
contempt that is filed in February/March, 2021 cannot be
said to be barred by time under Section 20 of the Contempt
Act.
8) For all the aforementioned reasons the Contempt
Case No.545 of 2021 is dismissed. Since common questions
of fact and law are raised in both the contempt cases
C.C.No.154 of 2021 is also dismissed. No costs.
9) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications
pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
__________________________
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J
Date:31.07.2023.
Ssv
