Bombay High Court
Cherag Shah vs Harshwardhan H Sabale on 9 August, 2024
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16702 OF 2023
IN
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 16273 OF 2023
CHERAG SHAH )...APPLICANT
V/s.
HARSHWARDHAN H SABALE )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Rashmin Khandekar, Ms.Kavishni Khanna, Mr.T.A.Kazmi, Mr.Utkarsh
Singh, Ms.Mandika Kukreja and Mr.Priyam Tiwari i/by S. K. Partners,
Advocate for the Award Creditor.
Mr.Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Kunal Mehta, Mr.Robin
Fernandes, Mr.Sukrit Parashar and Ms.Rashi Oswal i/by Vesta Legal,
Advocate for the Respondent.
Ms.Aditi Phatak a/w. Mr.Vijay Salokhe i/by BLAC, Advocate for the
Reserve Bank of India.
Mr.Sarat Chandra Mahanta and Mrs.Garima Srivastava, Reserve Bank
of India Officials, present in Court.
Mr.N.C.Pawar, Office on Special Duty, Court Receiver's Office, present in
Court.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 9th AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
1. Pursuant to order dated 6th August 2024, today when the matter
is called out, Mr.Kamat, learned Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
Mr.Harshwardhan Sabale, the Respondent in the matter and submits
that there is a moratorium operating in respect of the Respondent in
view of an application having been filed on 8 th August 2024 before the
National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") and that this Court cannot
proceed in execution in view of Section 96 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016. No affidavit or document in support thereof
has been furnished to this Court.
2. Mr.Kamat also submits that since there have been operational
difficulties in the functioning of the co-operative bank from where the
funds were to be transferred by NEFT after the same is investigated,
this Court can take a view in the matter.
3. Upon a query from this Court with reference to the affidavit cum
undertaking furnished by the Respondent, Mr.Harshwardhan Sabale, on
6th August 2024 undertaking to furnish a demand draft of an amount of
Rs.20,00,00,000/- in favour of the Applicant by today Mr.Kamat
submits that his client has not been able to do so.
4. Mr.Khandekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, also
submits that, today, much to his shock and surprise, the real Mr.Govind
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
Wadkar, is present in Court and on the other day, the person who was
present through video conferencing, styling himself as Mr.Govind
Wadkar, was not the real Govind Wadkar. Mr.Khandekar submits that
Mr.Govind Wadkar, who is present in Court, has furnished his Identity-
card as well as his photograph and submits that he is the Deputy
Chairman of the Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank and that the
Branch Manager is also present in Court and both of them have
informed that firstly, the email dated 6 th August 2024 furnished by
Mr.Parekh, the then learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and
as also reproduced by this Court in paragraph 3 of the order dated 6 th
August 2024, is not an email sent by Mr.Govind Wadkar. The learned
Counsel submits that not only that, Mr.Govind Wadkar and the Branch
Manager have also informed that the two NEFT transactions referred to
in the said email or referred to anywhere else, could not have been
undertaken by the bank, in as much as the bank was, with effect from
14th June 2023 subjected to the directions of the Reserve Bank of India
under Section 35A read with Section 56 of the Bank Regulation Act,
and further confirm the email dated 2 nd August 2024 referred to in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 6 th August 2024. Mr.Khandekar
submits that the fraud saga does not stop here and that both the Vice
Chairman and the Bank Manager present in Court today, have also
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
informed that there is no account in the name of Balasaheb Yuvak
Sanghtan (Society) nor in the name of the Kishore Arjun Jadhav nor in
the name of Balasaheb Education Services Trust nor in the name of
Deepak Krishna Jadhav opened with the Sawantwadi Urban Co-
operative Bank. The Vice Chairman and the Branch Manager of the
bank confirm the aforesaid and also submit that there is an account
opened in the name of Streamcast Education Services Private Limited
in which the Respondent is a director and the balance in the said
account is only Rs.2,070/-.
5. On 6th August 2024, this Court had passed the following order :
"1. Pursuant to the order dated 31st July, 2024, today when
the matter was called out, this Court was informed that the bank
which had supposedly generated the National Electronic Fund
Transfer ("NEFT") reference numbers with respect to the two
purported transactions of Rs.10 Crs each is subject to directions
of the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") under Section 35A read with
Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to
the cooperative societies with effect from 14th June, 2023 and
therefore, there have been no RTGS/NEFT transactions allowed /
made by the bank with any customer of the bank and therefore
the subject NEFT transactions were not made by the bank.
2. Mr. Khandekar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant tenders across the bar two e-mails dated 2 nd August,
2024 in support of his contention, the relevant extract whereof is
usefully reproduced as under:-
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
3.Mr.Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also
seeks to tender across the bar an email dated 6 th August, 2024,
purportedly from the Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank with
respect to the two transfers whereby it is informed that the
Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank is in the process of being
merged with the TJSB Co-operative Bank and the decision has
been taken on 29th June, 2024. That therefore, there may have
been delay in the transfer of the two amounts and that they are
investigating and within seven days they would give information
regarding the same. That in respect to the aforesaid two amounts
they have not contacted any person. That the information is
being provided at the request of the client and that no
responsibility is being undertaken with respect to the said
information by the bank. The email appears to have been sent by
Mr. Govind Wadkar, whose designation is mentioned as director.
The said email is also usefully reproduced as under:-
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
4. Further, pursuant to the directions of this Court, Mr. Jatin
Rawal, General Manager, Public Accounts Department, RBI is
also present in the Court along with his legal advisor.
5. Mr. Rawal, has confirmed that no monies have been
received into the account of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of
this Court, whether Rs. 10 Crs that were purportedly transferred
on 31st May, 2024 or the second Rs. 10 Crs purported to be
transferred on 5th July, 2024. Mr. Rawal, has also explained that
normally the NEFT numbers are generated by the concerned
bank pursuant to an application by the customer and at a time
when the transaction is being executed, there is a UTR number
also that is generated.
6. In the present case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court, it has been stated on oath and also submitted
through Counsel which has been recorded in the orders of both
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that the said payments
had been made by NEFT.
7. This Court, therefore, kept back the matter, so as to get
assistance on whether the NEFT has been executed and whether
there was a UTR code generated and therefore the concerned
official of the Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank, Mr. Govind
Wadkar, was directed to be available online to explain the same.
8. After a while i.e. at 11.30 a.m., Mr. Govind Wadkar came
online, however, he was unable to throw any light on the specific
questions with respect to the above and sought some time in the
matter, submitting that he was not the one who had executed the
transactions and the same were being executed through the bank
in Thane.
9. This Court therefore put it to Mr. Rawal of the RBI,
whether he would like to add anything to the answers given by
Mr. Govind Wadkar and Mr. Rawal submitted that he would not
like to add anything more than what he has already submitted.
10. Mr. Viraj S. Rane, Clerk, from the office of the
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
Prothonotary & Senior Master is present in the Court and he has
confirmed that since no payment had been received on 31 st May,
2024, a certificate of Non-Deposit dated 31 st July, 2024 has been
issued. That as regards the second transaction of Rs. 10 Crs, no
certificate has been issued as it has been recorded in the order
dated 11th July, 2024 that the Applicant has received the money,
however, submitting that neither the first payment of Rs. 10 Crs
nor the second purported payment of Rs. 10 Crs has been
received in the account of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of
this Court, maintained with the RBI.
11. The Respondent is present in the Court pursuant to the
directions of this Court. Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the
Respondent, on instructions, submits that the Respondents would
in view of the above circumstances make payment of the amount
of Rs. 20 Crs by 9th August, 2024 by way of Demand Draft of Rs.
20 Crs and that the statement may be accepted as an
undertaking to this Court.
12. Mr. Khandekar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, firstly, submits that from the events that have
transpired, it is clear that the conduct of the Respondents is
deliberate, contumacious and egregious and be met with the
strictest punishment and apart from punitive orders with respect
to the breaches of the orders of this Court, the payment of Rs. 20
Crs by Demand Draft offered to be paid by the Respondent by 9 th
August, 2024 ought to be in the name of the Applicant. Mr.
Khandekar further submits that the amount of Rs. 2,00,70,121/-
lying in the following accounts also be directed to be transferred
to the account of Applicant:
1.Axis Bank Account No. 921010013529564 - Rs. 26,14,530
2.ICICI Bank Account No. 333701501301- Rs. 1,38,809/-
3.ICICI Bank Account No. 344901000352- Rs 27,79,228/-
4.ICICI Bank Account No. 344905500008-Rs. 94, 042/-
5.ICICI Bank Account No. 3122401500240- Rs. 26,574/-
6.HDFC Bank Account No.50100677161031-Rs. 1,64,16,938/-
13. Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the Respondent, has in
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
anticipation of orders of this Court, offered to this Court, that his
client, the Respondent, would attend to the office of the
Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court at 11.00 am and
mark his presence everyday.
14. I have heard the learned Counsel and also the officials of
the RBI, and the Bank.
15. On 31st July, 2024, the following order was passed:-
"1. Pursuant to the order dated 11 July 2024, today when the
matter was called out in the morning session, this Court was
informed by Mr. Khandekar, learned Counsel for the Award
Creditor that none of the two payments of Rs.10 Crore have been
received in the account of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of
this Court and that the Judgment Debtor has played a fraud.
Accordingly, this Court had kept back the matter for the
Judgment Debtor to remain present in Court in the afternoon
session. Mr. Khandekar has also tendered across the bar a
certificate of non-deposit from the Prothonotary & Senior Master
as regards, the non-deposit of Rs.10 Crores that was due by 31 st
July 2024.
2. In the afternoon session, when the matter is called out, Mr.
Parekh, learned Counsel appears for the Judgment Debtor and
seeks to tender across the bar a communication from the
Judgment Debtor seeking indulgence on humanitarian grounds
for not being able to remain present in the Court today
afternoon. Mr. Parekh also submits that Section 34 Application
challenging the Award has been withdrawn by the Judgment
Debtor and that he has sought time to settle the matter after the
RBI responds to their communication and follow-ups as pursuant
to the letter dated 19th July 2024 whereby on behalf of the
Judgment Debtor, the RBI has been requested to, with extreme
urgency, ascertain as to why the two payments by NEFT
amounting to Rs.20 Crores are not traceable or available in the
account of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court,
Bombay. Mr. Parekh also seeks to tender across the bar two
Affidavits both dated 22nd July 2024 of two persons who have
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
respectively sought to transfer Rs.10 Crores each, one on 31 st
May 2024 and the other on 5th July 2024 on behalf of the
Judgment Debtor in the account of the Prothonotary & Senior
Master with the RBI. Mr. Parekh submits that although the said
amounts have been debited from the respective accounts, they
are not traceable and the RBI is in the process of investigating
the same.
3. Mr. Khandekar, learned Counsel for the Award Creditor
submits that since the Application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been withdrawn, this
Court consider passing further orders in execution, so that the
amounts due under the Award are recovered.
4. Be that as it may, this Court is deeply concerned that the
monies that have been sought to be transferred to the account of
the Prothonotary & Senior Master by way of NEFT have not been
credited into the said account and therefore, this Court deems it
appropriate to issue notice to the General Manager of the Public
Accounts Department of the RBI to attend this Court on 6 th
August 2024 at 10.30 a.m. and to give an update in the matter
and as to when the monies would be credited to the account of
the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court.
5. Let the Judgment Debtor positively remain on the next
date, failing which this Court will pass necessary orders to secure
his presence.
6. Stand over to 6th August 2024 at 10.30 a.m. on
supplementary board."
16. As can be seen, this Court was deeply concerned with
respect to the monies that had to be transferred to the account of
Prothonotary & Senior Master by way of NEFT and which had
not been credited to the said account with the RBI and therefore,
this Court had issued notice to the General Manager of the Public
Accounts Department of the RBI to attend this Court and to give
an update in the matter and as to when the Rs. 20 Crs would be
credited into the account of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of
this Court.
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
17. From the above submissions, it is clear that the monies
purported to be transferred by NEFT into the account of
Prothonotary & Senior Master with the RBI have neither been
credited into the account nor have such monies even been
received by the RBI. Prima facie it also appears that although the
NEFT numbers have been given by the drawer's bank viz. the
Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank, but the transactions have
not been executed as there is no UTR code or number. Although
in the email dated 6th August, 2024, from the bank to the
Advocate for the Respondent, there is a mention of the UTR
number but it is mentioned alongwith the NEFT number and
which number is statedly the same. This Court has shown the
said email to Mr. Rawal, the General Manger of the RBI, who has
clarified that it cannot be the same number. Therefore, it appears
that the said reference as "1. #- 31 es 2024 jksth 10,00,00,000/- (#i;s
QDr ngk dksVh) (UTR dzekad % NEFT/PROTHO/NB24152398731), 2. #- 5 tqyS
2024 jksth 10,00,00,000/- (#i;s QDr ngk dksVh) (UTR dzekad %
NEFT/PROTHO/NB24604759182)" appear to be misleading.
18. For want of better words this is serious and cannot be
taken lightly. This court is aware that these are execution
proceedings where the Respondent has agreed to make payment
of approximately Rs.50 Crs to the Applicant under the Consent
Terms filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court
in which, as stated on oath before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and recorded in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Rs. 10
Crs had purportedly been deposited with the Prothonotary &
Senior Master on 31st May, 2024 and later on under the same
consent terms, modified by consent of the parties another Rs. 10
Crs were purportedly deposited in the account of the
Prothonotary and Senor Master on 5th July, 2024, by two
individuals : Mr. Dipak Krushna Jadhav, has confirmed on oath
by affidavit dated 22nd July, 2024 that NEFT payment of Rs. 10
Crs has been made to the account of the Bombay High Court on
31st May, 2024 and has given the transaction details in paragraph
2 of the said affidavit as under:-
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
"2. Details of transaction:
* Account Name : 8443 Prothonotary & Senior Master, High
Court,Bombay.
*Bank Name and Branch: RBI,Mumbai
Regional Office, S. B. Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001
* Account Type: Personal Ledger Account
*Account No. :01514601100
*IFSC Code: RBIS0MBPA04
*UTR No. : NEFT/PROTHO/NB2415298731"
19. The purpose of the payment is mentioned in the said
affidavit as payment being made on behalf of Mr.
Harshawardhan Sabale viz. Respondent in the matter in
compliance with his matter involving Mr. Cherag Shah viz.
Applicant in this matter.
20. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit there is a confirmation
and undertaking that the payment has been duly made and that
the affidavit is to be treated as an official undertaking from the
deponent confirming the payment. The said affidavit has been
verified and notarized by a Notary from Sindhudurg.
21. A similar affidavit dated 22nd July, 2024, has been given by
another individual by the name Kishor Arjun Jadhav that on 5 th
July, 2024 NEFT payment of Rs. 10 Crs was made to the account
of the Bombay High Court with the following details:-
"Amount : Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only)
* Account Name : 8443 Prothonotary & Senior Master, High
Court,Bombay.
*Bank Name and Branch: RBI,Mumbai
Regional Office, S. B. Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001
* Account Type: Personal Ledger Account
*Account No. :01514601100
*IFSC Code: RBIS0MBPA04
*Date of Payment : 5th July 2024
*UTR No. : NEFT/PROTHO/NB24604759182"
22. That the purpose of the payment was on behalf of the
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
Respondent for compliance in the matter with the Applicant. In
this affidavit it has also been stated that the payment has been
made into the High Court account from the deponent's account
bearing No. 0020005090000035 with the Sawantwadi Urban Co-
Op Bank Ltd., Sawantwadi. The said affidavit has also been
verified and notarized by a Notary in Sindhudurg.
23. The email dated 2nd August, 2024 from the bank as quoted
above and the email dated 6th August, 2024 also quoted above,
clearly suggest that the transactions in respect whereof the
aforesaid two affidavits have been furnished are doubtful
requiring further investigation by an independent agency.
24. This Court, therefore, enquired from Mr. Rawal, General
Manager of the RBI, whether the RBI can undertake the
investigation. Mr. Mahanta, Deputy Legal Advisor of the RBI
informs this Court that the RBI only has supervisory powers to
carry out sample inspections under Section 35A of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 but does not have the power to carry out
investigation into fraudulent transactions.
25. This Court therefore sought to peruse Section 35A of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which is usefully quoted as under:-
"35-A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions.-
(1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that-
(a) in the public; or
in the interest of banking policy; or
(b) to prevent the affairs of any banking company being
conducted in a manner deterimental to the interests of
the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the
interest of the banking company; or
(c) to secure the proper management of any banking
company generally, it is necessary to issue directions
to banking companies generally or to any banking
company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue
such directions as it deems fit, and the banking
companies or the banking company, as the case may
be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
(2) The Reserve Bank may, on representation made to it or
on its own motion, modify or cancel any direction
issued under sub-section (1), and in so modifying or
cancelling any direction may impose such conditions
as it thinks fit, subject to which the modification or
cancellation shall have effect."
26. A perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that
where the RBI is satisfied in public interest or in the interest of
banking policy or to prevent the affairs of any banking company
being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the
depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the
banking company or to secure the proper management of any
banking company considers that it is necessary to issue directions
to the banking company (ies) it may, issue such direction(s) as it
deems fit, and the banking company(ies) shall be bound to
comply with such directions.
27. Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, provides
that the Banking Regulation Act shall apply to co-operative
societies with the modifications mentioned therein. In other
words, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 also applies to co-
operative banks of the nature of Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative
Bank.
28. From the aforequoted email of 2 nd August, 2024
purportedly from the branch manager of the said co-operative
bank, it appears that the bank is already under directions issued
under Section 35A read with Section 56 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 and that it has been stated in the said mail
that with effect from 14th June, 2023 there have been no RTGS /
NEFT transactions allowed by the bank with any customer of the
bank. It, therefore, prima facie appears that the affidavits filed by
Mr. Dipak Krushna Jadhav and Kishor Arjun Jadhav are false as
there is a clear contradiction in view of the said email of the
Bank, which position of non deposit / non receipt has also been
confirmed by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master as
well as the Applicant.
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
29. While the RBI can continue to monitor the compliance of
directions given under Sections 35A read with 56 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 with respect to the Sawantwadi Urban Co-
operative Bank, this Court is of the view that the matter with
respect to the purported payments of Rs. 10 Crs. on 31 st May,
2024 and 5th July, 2024 requires to be investigated by the police
authorities.
30. Let the police authorities register a First Information
Report in this matter at the instance of the Applicant, within a
period of two weeks and thereafter the investigation be
preferably completed within a period of three months, keeping in
mind the above prima facie observations of this Court and submit
report to this Court in addition to taking steps as per law
including filing of chargesheet against concerned persons.
31. The Respondent, Mr. Harshawardhan Hanmant Sabale, to
furnish an undertaking to this Court that he would make the
payment of Rs. 20 Crs by way of Demand Draft in the name of
the Applicant viz. Cherag Shah by 9 th August, 2024. In addition,
the Respondent to also undertake that he would not leave the
Mumbai city under any circumstances and remain present in the
Court on every date when the matter is called out. Let the said
affidavit/undertaking be furnished during the course of the day.
32. Let the amounts lying in the banks accounts mentioned in
paragraph 12 above be transferred to the account of the
Applicant within a period of two weeks upon a communication
being addressed in this behalf by the Applicant to the said banks.
33. While this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the
RBI officials, this Court directs them to remain present on the
next date as well, with an update, if any, in the matter.
34. List on 9th August, 2024. However, Mr. Parekh, learned
Counsel for the Respondent requests that the matter be listed at
02:30 p.m. on the said date. Accordingly, list on 9th August, 2024
at 2.30 p.m., when this Court will also consider passing
appropriate orders with respect to the breach of the orders of this
Court including under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
as under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
35. All to act on an authenticated copy of this order."
6. From the aforesaid facts and the series of orders passed by this
Court, it prima facie appears that the Respondent has not only
disobeyed the orders of this Court but has also defrauded this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also failed to comply with the
undertaking given to this Court and that his conduct is contumacious
and egregious.
7. As can be seen, on 6th August 2024, this Court had recorded that
this Court would consider passing appropriate orders with respect to
the breach of the orders of this Court including under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 as well as under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India.
8. The orders clearly bear out that neither Rs.10,00,00,000/-, as
claimed to be deposited by the Respondent on 31 st May 2024 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has been deposited, nor
the Rs.10,00,00,000/- claimed to have been deposited pursuant to the
Consent Terms filed in this Court, as modified by orders by consent and
claimed to be deposited on 5 th July 2024, has been deposited as that
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
could not have been deposited, as is clearly borne out from the above
facts. There was an undertaking given to this Court on 6 th August 2024
that a demand draft of Rs.20,00,00,000/- in favour of Mr.Cherag Shah,
the award creditor, would be presented before this Court on 9 th August
2024 at 2.30 p.m., which undertaking has also admittedly been
breached, as even at 4.39 p.m., there is no sign of the demand draft
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly
submits that the said demand draft is not in place.
9. That being the position, the above facts, prima facie demonstrate
that the Respondent has committed contempt of this Court.
10. Just when this order is being dictated and this Court was
considering the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as
Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the connected High Court
Rules, Mr.Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, submits
that he be given an opportunity to confer with his client to take
appropriate instructions.
11. After Mr.Kamat has conferred with his client and taken
instructions in the matter, Mr.Kamat submits that he has put to his
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
client to given an undertaking to the Court which would be honoured
and not like the ones given earlier and submits, on instructions, that if
time be given till Monday, 12th August 2024, 4.30 p.m., his client would
make good the payment. Mr.Kamat submits that the Respondent would
furnish a fresh undertaking seeking extension of time to make the
payment of Rs.20,00,00,000/- to the Applicant by 4.30 p.m. on
Monday, 12th August 2024.
12. Mr.Khandekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, vehemently
opposes any request for time, submitting that the conduct of the
Respondent, thus far, in no way inspires any confidence that he would
honour his commitment even by Monday, 12th August 2024 and that
this Court apart from issuing show cause notice under the Contempt of
Courts Act, can immediately commit the Respondent to civil prison
under Order XXI Rule 40(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
("CPC") in as much as the notice under Order XXI Rule 37 of the CPC
was issued pursuant to order dated 11 th March 2024 and that the
current chain of events clearly demonstrate that the Respondent has
not been able to explain as to why he should not be committed to civil
prison in execution of the award and the subsequent Consent Terms.
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
13. Mr.Khandekar also points out that even if a show cause notice is
issued under the Contempt of Courts Act, pending determination of the
charge, this Court can also direct the Respondent to be detained in such
custody, as it may specify.
14. I have heard the learned Counsel and also considered the
submissions. From the aforesaid facts, as noted above, prima facie the
conduct of the Respondent appears to be deliberate, willful and
contumacious. However, despite the aforesaid finding, just so as to
honour the request made by Mr.Kamat, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Respondent, to give time to the Respondent till 4.30
p.m. on Monday, 12th August 2024, this Court deems it appropriate to
list the matter on Monday, 12th August 2024, at 4.30 p.m. Let the
undertaking as submitted by Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel be
furnished today itself.
15. Even though this Court, in view of the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel, is granting time to the Respondent to make
payment of Rs.20,00,00,000/- in the name of the Applicant by Monday,
12th August 2024, in view of the breaches of the orders of this Court
and prima facie contumacious and egregious conduct of the
36-IA(L)-16702-2023.doc
Respondent, as described above, this Court is inclined to issue show
cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act.
16. However, just as this part of the order has been dictated,
Mr.Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, urges this Court
to postpone the issuance of the show cause notice till Monday, 12 th
August 2024, in as much as, the learned Senior Counsel believes that
one last opportunity be granted to the Respondent to purge the
contempt.
17. Therefore, only by way of sheer indulgence to the learned Senior
Counsel this Court postpones the issuance of show cause notice under
the Contempt of Courts Act till Monday, 12 th August, 2024. List on 12th
August 2024 at 4.30 p.m.
18. The Respondent is also directed to remain present in Court on
the next date. The Reserve Bank of India officials as well as the officials
of the Sawantwadi Urban Co-operative Bank Officials also to remain
present on the next date.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Digitally
ARTI
ARTI VILAS
VILAS KHATATE
KHATATE Date:
2024.08.09
23:16:55
+0530
