KOSHIKA TELECOM LTD. Vs. MS. SHALINI SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Official Liquidator had filed this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for holding one Assistant General Manager(Law) of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI) guilty of committing contempt of this Court and punishing her for deliberately not complying with the order dated 08/10/2009 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 75/2002.

(2.) THE undisputed facts leading to the initiation of present contempt proceedings may first all be noticed. Company Petition No. 75/2002 was filed by Lord Krishna Bank for the winding up of one Company by the name of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. and in that petition this Company was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 02/08/2005 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was asked to take charge of all the assets of the said Company. Thereafter, in his status report dated 6th October,2009 it was pointed out by the Official Liquidator that IFCI, a creditor of the Company under liquidation, had realized some money by sale of some assets of the Company under liquidation, through the intervention of the Debt Recovery Tribunal -I, Delhi where recovery proceedings for the recovery of its dues had been initiated. In that report the Official Liquidator had sought a direction to the IFCI for depositing the sale proceeds already realized by it from the sale of assets of the Company under liquidation with the Official Liquidator. This Court vide order dated 08/10/2009 had allowed that prayer. After the passing of the order dated 08/10/2009 by this Court, a meeting was held on 26/10/2009 by the Official Liquidator with the Respondent -contemnor, Assistant General Manager(Law) of IFCI and in that meeting the Official Liquidator apprised her of the said direction dated 08/10/2009 given to IFCI for the deposit of the sale proceeds of the assets of the Company under liquidation with the Official Liquidator. However, the IFCI did not honor that direction of this Court and that non -compliance of the orders of this Court led to the filing of this contempt petition by the Official Liquidator.

(3.) THE Recovery Officer Shri R.K. Bansal, who had passed the order dated 22nd February, 2010, appeared in Court on 6th May, 2011. The record requisitioned from his office was perused and it showed that the Official Liquidator had in response to the notice given to him by the Recovery Officer on the filing of application by IFCI seeking permission to appropriate the sale proceeds lying with it placed a copy of the order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by this Court before the Recovery Officer besides making a reference to that order in its reply. Copies of the application moved by the IFCI before the Recovery Officer, Official Liquidator's reply thereto along with its annexure as also various orders passed by the Recovery Officer after the filing of the said application of IFCI till 22nd February, 2010 were ordered to be kept on file of the present proceedings and the Recovery Officer's records were ordered to be sent back. Mr. R.K. Bansal, though had not been given any formal notice to show cause as to why he had passed the order dated 22nd February, 2010 when this Court had already directed IFCI to remit the sale proceeds of the assets of the Company under liquidation to the Official Liquidator attached to this Court but Mr. Bansal voluntarily clarified that the said order of this Court was not brought to his notice during the course of hearing of IFCI's application dated 9th December, 2009.