Madras High Court
M/S. B.J. Expo Private Limited vs Mr. Arvind Mayaram on 26 October, 2021
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Contempt Petition No. 2865 of 2014
1. M/s. B.J. Expo Private Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr.B. Jayaraman,
No.10, 1st Floor, Adithanar Street,
Gandhi Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.
2. Mr. B. Jayaraman
3. Smt. J. Amsaveni ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mr. Arvind Mayaram,
Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Banking,
Sanmadmurg, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Raghuram Rajan,
Reserve Bank of India,
Central Office Building,
18th Floor, Shahid Bhagat
Singh Road,Mumbai – 400 001.
3. Mr. Leon Therattil,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Management
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
Branch,
“Red Cross Building”,
No.32, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4. Mr.Satish Kumar Gupta,
Director – Head Resolution,
JM Financial Asset Reconstruction
Company Pvt. Ltd.,
7th Floor, Cnergy,
Appasaheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. ..Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
70/71, to punish the respondents for violation and disobedience of the order
dated 27.11.2013 as merged with order dated 17.04.2014 passed in W.P.
No. 32169 of 2013.
For Petitioners :: Mr. Tamilmani
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Shankara Narayanan,
Additional Solicitor General for R1
Mr.C. Mohan for
M/s. King & Partridge for R2
Mr.M.L. Ganesh for R3
*****
ORDER
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R. VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The present contempt petition arises out of the order dated
27.11.2013 as merged with the order dated 17.04.2014 passed in W.P. No.
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
32169 of 2013.
2. When the matter is taken up, it is represented by
Mr. M.L. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that
pursuant to one-time settlement offered, the parties have entered into a
compromise and the issue has been settled and the documents have been
returned. During the pendency of the writ petition, as the order was not
complied with, the contempt proceedings were initiated to punish
respondents 1 to 4 for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders
passed by this Court.
3. Mr. Tamilmani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioners would submit that as respondents 3 & 4 have violated the
orders of this Court, the contempt proceedings have been initiated.
However, in the prayer, all the four respondents are said to have violated the
orders of this Court for which they are sought to be punished and it included
Mr.Arvind Mayaram, then Finance Secretary of India and Mr. Raghuram
Rajan, then Governor of Reserve Bank of India as respondents 1 and 2. It is
stated by the learned Senior Counsel that the intention was to punish the
violators and probably, on wrong advice, respondents 1 and 2 would have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been made as parties. He would further submit that an affidavit dated
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
25.10.2021 has been filed by petitioners 2 and 3 tendering unconditional
apology.
4. Though it has been pointed out by Mr. Tamilmani that a
mistake has been comitted by deleting the names of 3 and 4 from the prayer
and including the names of all the respondents stating that they have
violated the orders of this Court, which would have been caused by the
office of the counsel for the parties and further submitted that the apology
may be accepted and that the petitioners are willing to abide by the orders of
the Court, inasmuch as petitioners 2 and 3 have signed the affidavit, the
counsel could not be blamed and ultimately, it is the responsibility of the
parties to accept the consequence of filing the affidavit.
5. Mr.C. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Reserve Bank of
India would submit that unnecessarily, respondents 1 and 2 have been
dragged to the Court and costs will have to be imposed, payable to
respondents 1 and 2. In support of his submission, learned counsel also
relied on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in
Manohar Lal (D) By Lrs. V. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs and Ors
(Manu/SC/0415/2010), Advocate General, State of Bihar V. M/s. Madhya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pradesh Khair Industries and Another ((1980) 3 SCC 311) and the order
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
dated 13.08.2021 in W.P. No. 2757 of 2020 by the First Bench of this Court
in Mohd. Ali Jinnah V. The Chief Manager, Standard Chartered Bank
and Anr.
6. Though we find that there is some substance in the argument
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for Reserve Bank of India, the
fact remains that petitioners 2 and 3 have tendered unconditional apology
and that the names of respondents 1 and 2 have been written in ink, which
may or may not have been known to the deponent of the affidavit in the
contempt petition. However, for the mistake committed by the petitioners,
they themselves have agreed to pay costs. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed as cost on the petitioners, payable
jointly and severally by all the petitioners to Rajiv Gandhi Government
General Hospital, Chennai, within a period of 10 working days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Even though the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act contemplate a maximum fine amount of Rs.2000/-,
in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 8
SCC 470, a higher amount can be imposed as costs. However, in this case,
since the Petitioners have tendered unconditional apology, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accepts same with an observation that they must be careful infuture, while
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
signing
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J
AND
R. VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
nv
an affidavit before the Court of Law. For the mistake committed by the
Petitioners, though this Court refrains from imposition of higher amount as
costs, the sum mentioned supra, which has been agreed by them, needs to be
paid within the stipulated time.
7. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the contempt
petition insofar as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned and with regard to
respondents 3 and 4, the contempt petition is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (R.V.J.)
nv 26.10.2021
Cont.P. No. 2865 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
