Delhi High Court
Rajendra Kumar Goel vs Icici Bank Ltd on 5 February, 2021
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.02.2021
+ LPA 51/2021 & CM APPLs.4423-24/2021
RAJENDRA KUMAR GOEL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yatish Kumar Goel, Adv.
versus
ICICI BANK LTD ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
CM APPL.4424/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 51/2021 & CM APPL.4423/2021 (stay)
1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 05.01.2021 in CONT. CAS (C) 320/2020 and CM
APPL.13548/2020, the appellant/original respondent No.2 in CONT. CAS
(C) 320/2020 has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and looked into the
facts and circumstances of the case. From the facts placed on record by the
appellant, it emerges that earlier contempt case being CONT. CAS (C)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:18.02.2021 13:40
102/2019 was preferred by the respondent/Bank, wherein vide order dated
30.04.2019, the appellant herein was restrained from writing any e-mail or
complaint against the Bank to different Forums with regard to the agreement
of the Home Loan in question. For ready reference, operative part of the
aforementioned order reads as under:-
"Since, the matter is subjudice, the respondents are restrained
from further writing any email/complaint against the petitioner
bank to different forums with regard to the agreement of home
loan bearing No. LBDEL0000747368 entered between the
respondent No. 1 & 2 and the petitioner bank, till the next date
of hearing."
(emphasis supplied)
3. It appears that despite the aforesaid restraint order, the present
appellant (original respondent No.2) continued sending e-mails against the
Bank and therefore, the respondent bank preferred another contempt petition
being Cont. Cas (C) 320/2020, in which the impugned order dated
05.01.2021 has been passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been
observed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the impugned order that despite the
aforesaid restraint order dated 30.04.2019 and Cont. Cas (C) 320/2020, the
appellant (original respondent No.2) has continued sending e-mails against
the Bank and therefore, notice has been issued by the learned Single Judge
to the respondents therein, including the present appellant (original
respondent No.2). Notice to show cause has been made returnable for filing
reply within four weeks and the petition has been listed on 9th February,
2021 for further proceedings.
4. It is evident that the matter is pending before the learned Single
Judge. Appellant (original respondent No.2) has been given time to file
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:18.02.2021 13:40
reply. It is open to the appellant to file reply and argue before the learned
Single Judge to purge the contempt. At present, there is no adjudication of
the rights & liabilities of the appellant and only notice to show cause has
been issued. Thus, in our view, the present appeal is premature. We see no
reason to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.
5. We hereby request the learned Single Judge to decide Cont. Cas (C)
320/2020, in accordance with law, Rules, Regulations and on the basis of the
evidence on record after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the
appellant (original respondent No.2) as expeditiously as possible and
practicable.
6. With these observations, the present appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2021
kks
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:18.02.2021 13:40
