Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Sharma S/O Late Gajanand Sharma ... vs Shri Kedar Sharma on 11 December, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CONC No. 1364 of 2019
(BABULAL SHARMA S/O LATE GAJANAND SHARMA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR CHANDRAKALA SHARMA
AND OTHERS Vs SHRI KEDAR SHARMA AND OTHERS)
Dated : 11-12-2023
Shri Dheeraj Singh Panwar, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay P.Joshi, counsel for respondent No.3.
The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 02.09.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No. 885/2008. This Court
while disposing of the writ appeal vide order dated 02.09.2016 had passed the
following order :
''12. In the case in hand, the appellant is a party to the writ
proceedings and as submitted by the learned counsel for the
parties, so also the fact that legal issue has been decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, we set aside the order
passed by the learned Writ Court on 12.09.2008 in Writ Petition
No.4351/2008 and direct the Official Liquidator to act, in
accordance with the statutory provisions and observations made
by the Apex Court in its order dated 01.07.2015; an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) along with interest, in
terms of the interim order dated 23.10.2008 passed in all the
writ appeals (except Writ Appeal No.885/2008), be transferred
to the appellant - Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee
Corporation for its distribution, in terms of the specific
provision and order passed by the Apex Court. It is also observed
that after appellant's (Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee
Corporation's) dues are satisfied, the Official Liquidator shall
disburse the dues of depositors along with interest, as and when
funds are available considering that they all are senior citizen.''
2. From the above directions, it is clear that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4351/2008 dated 12.09.2008 was set
aside. The Division Bench of this Court had ordered that an amount of Rs. 50
lakhs be transferred to the appellant therein i.e. Deposit Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for its distribution in terms of the specific
provision and order passed by the Apex Court. The second part of the
direction was that after the aforesaid amount is deposited/satisfied, the Official
Liquidator shall disburse the dues of depositors along with interest as and when
funds are available considering that they all are senior citizens.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the first direction
of depositing Rs. 50 lakhs with DICGC had already been done. So far as the
second part with regard to payment of dues to the depositor is concerned, shall
be paid in accordance with the observations made by the Apex Court in its
order dated 01.07.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are total 13
petitioners who are more or less above 80 years of age and if the judgment is
implemented on the basis of pro rata payment, then the petitioners would not
get their dues during their lifetime, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court in
the writ appeal had directed to make the payment of the petitioners as and when
funds are available.
5. This Court vide order dated 10.08.2023 had directed the respondent-
Bank to file an affidavit with regard to the funds available with them. In
compliance of the aforesaid direction, an affidavit has been filed stating that
balance of Rs. 3.5 crores is already lying with the bank. The writ appellate
Court had directed to make the payment of dues of the petitioners because of
their age, therefore, the plea of the counsel for the respondent that the same
shall be disbursed on the pro rata basis has no legs to stand.
6. In view of the aforesaid as well as looking to the availability of the
funds, it is directed that the respondents shall make payment of the amount due
to all the 13 petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed
today. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid payment is not made, this
Court may consider initiating contempt proceeding against the contemnors.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to report compliance
by filing of affidavit to the effect that all the outstanding dues have been paid to
the petitioners respectively.
List this case on 16.01.2024.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
