CITICORP FINANCE INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CITI CENTER, 5TH FLOOR BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400 051 Vs. VIKAS TELECOM LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is on the premise that the respondents - accused numbering seven, 2 to 7 who are Directors of the first accused company have violated the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the learned IV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in AA No. 25008/2011 in a proceeding under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short 'the Act']. The operative portion of the order reads as under: ORDER Application is allowed in part. The respondents shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 178,10,04,815/ - (Rupees One hundred seventy eight crores ten lakhs four thousand eight hundred fifteen, only) within 15 days. Till the time of furnishing bank guarantee, the respondents shall not sell or dispose of or encumber the movable and immovable properties of first respondent company including the mortgaged property. The respondents shall also furnish information to the applicant required to be furnished in terms of DSA within 15 days from the date the applicant furnish the details of the information required in terms of DSA. Parties to bear their own cost

(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the complainant, submission of Sri. Sreevatsa, learned senior counsel is that the respondents - accused persons have not furnished the bank guarantee as per the directions, but have nevertheless to the understanding and knowledge of the authorized signatory of the complainant - company, leased out some of its properties in favour of third parties and the complainant has obtained such information on applying for encumbrance certificate in respect of properties and that revealing the same etc.

(3.) WE are unable to discern any violation of either the order or that it is fully covers the object of section 9 of the Act, particularly, as in a claim for money, the properties do not become subject shatter. In any view of the matter, we do not find any occasion to exercise our contempt jurisdiction in a matter of this nature. Contempt petition is dismissed.