M/s. Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P.F.C. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Contempt Petition No.326 Of 1995
IN
Civil Appeal No.4503 Of 1990
IN
Civil Appeal No.4503 Of 1990
Petitioner: M/s. Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: U.P.F.C. & Ors.
Apeal: Contempt Petition No.326 Of 1995
IN
Civil Appeal No.4503 Of 1990
IN
Civil Appeal No.4503 Of 1990
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 13, 1995
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Article 141 – Law laid down by the Court is binding on everyone – If there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in the Court.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Law laid down by the Supreme Court – Violation of – Remedy – Whether by way of contempt proceedings? – Held no – If there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in the Court.
Cases Reffered:
1. Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, JT 1992 (2) SC 326 = 1993 (2) SCC 279. (para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, JT 1992 (2) SC 326 = ((1993) 2 SCC 279) has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.
2. The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra’s case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.
3. Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.
4. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, JT 1992 (2) SC 326 = ((1993) 2 SCC 279) has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.
2. The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra’s case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.
3. Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.
4. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
