INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. LALIT KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents filed CW 1578/99 challenging money decree passed by DRT. They also sought interim stay which was granted conditionally requiring him to deposit Rs.13.05 lakhs within six weeks. They executed an undertaking for this whereby Rs. five lakhs were to be paid by them within two weeks and the balance in four weeks thereafter. They, however, failed to deposit resulting in vacation of stay order.

(2.) Petitioner Bank (respondent in CW) has filed this contempt petition alleging non- compliance of court order on plea that respondents had breached their undertaking. L/C for petitioner Mr. Vasudevan submitted that respondents had warded off execution of the decree on the strength of undertaking given by them to make deposit and once he had failed to act upon this undertaking, they had rendered themselves liable to contempt action.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, L/C for respondents submitted that their undertaking to deposit Rs.13.00 lakhs or so was in lieu of the stay of decree by the court and their failure to deposit had the natural consequence of vacating the stay order. The question of contempt would not arise, more so when it was open to petitioner Bank to execute the decree against respondents. He relied upon a judgment of Supreme court in R.N. Dey and Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others (2000) 4 SCC 400 laying down that weapon of contempt could not be used for purposes of executing a decree or implementing an order for which law provided appropriate procedure. He also disclosed that respondent's CW 1578/98 wherein conditional stay order was passed also stands dismissed.