Delhi High Court
Onicra Credit Information Co Ltd vs Scenta Joy & Anr on 2 May, 2017
#25
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 339/2017 & CM APPLs. 16790-16791/2017
ONICRA CREDIT INFORMATION CO LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amish Tandon with Mr. Ayush
Beotra, Advocates
versus
SCENTA JOY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Suhail Dutt, Senior Advocate
with Mr. H.S. Parihar, Mr. Kuldeep
Parihar, Mr. Azhar Alam and
Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocates
% Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 21st April, 2016 passed in W.P (C) No. 6775/2011
whereby respondent-RBI was directed to decide the petitioner's application
for registration in terms of Section 4 of the Credit Information Companies
(Regulation) Act, 2005 [for short 'Act, 2005'] on or before 20 th August,
2016 and communicate its decision to the petitioner.
2. Upon an appeal being filed by the respondent-RBI, the Division
Bench in LPA No. 370/2016 vide order dated 31st May, 2016 upheld the
learned Single Judge's direction with a modification, i.e., respondent-RBI
while considering the petitioner's application, if it so deems necessary can
also simultaneously enter upon a determination under Section 5(3) of the
Act, 2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in violation of the
aforesaid orders the respondent-RBI vide the order dated 22nd August, 2016
has again rejected petitioner's application for grant of certificate of
registration under the Act, 2005 on the ground that total number of credit
information companies presently carrying on the business of credit
information in India is adequate and that as of now, there is no requirement
for another Credit information company in the country.
4. Learned senior counsel for respondents who appears on advance
notice states that petitioner had suppressed the fact that on the same
allegations it had withdrawn a subsequent application seeking
clarification/direction from the Division Bench. He points out that the
prayer in the said application was to clarify that the impugned letter under
Section 5(3) of the Act, 2005 does not relieve the RBI from complying with
the orders dated 21st April, 2016 and 31st May, 2016. In support of his
submission, he has today in Court, handed over a copy of the aforesaid
application and the order passed thereon. The same are taken on record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that
petitioner owed a duty to disclose in the present contempt petition as well as
during the course of arguments that it had withdrawn an application seeking
clarification/direction on the same allegations in the disposed of LPA
No.370/2016.
6. This Court is also of the view that Section 5(3) of the Act, 2005 gives
the discretionary power to RBI to determine the total number of credit
information companies which may be granted the certificates of registration.
7. Since in the present case the RBI was of the opinion that the total
number of existing credit information companies carrying on the business of
credit information in India is adequate and there is no requirement for
another credit information company in the country, this Court is of the view
that the impugned order does not constitute wilful disobedience of the order
of learned Single Judge dated 21st April, 2016 as modified by the Division
Bench vide order dated 31st May, 2016.
8. The Supreme Court in Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705 after referring to the Constitution Bench
judgment in State of Bihar vs. Sonabati Kumar, AIR 1961 SC 221 has held
that the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deal with the wilful
defiance of the order passed by the court and order of punishment is not to
be passed if the court is satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a
misapprehension as to the scope of the order or there was an unintentional
wrong for the reason that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable
of more than one interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the
order but conducted itself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.
9. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the
RBI is based on a bona fide interpretation of the orders of learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench. Consequently, no case of contempt of court
is made out. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st April,
2016, it is always open to it to challenge the same in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid liberty, present contempt petition and applications
stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 02, 2017
rn
