MASTER DHRUV GOYAL Vs. ANAND PERKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice to show cause was issued to defendants 2 to 4 as to why the proceedings for Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against them on their wilfully not obeying the order of this Court dt. 29.5.84. Replies have been filed to this show cause notice. Smt. Neera Goyal, wife of late Shri Suresh Goyal and her two children Dhruv Goyal and Ritu Goyal had filed this suit for partition of properties, rendition of account and recovery of money. There exists a partnership firm M/s Anand Prakash Ravinder Kumar, which is not a party to the present suit. However, defendants 1 to 4 were partners of the said firm. Certain amounts belonging to the plaintiff stood deposited in the said firm and on 7.5.82 defendant No. 1 had given an undertaking to this court that interest accruing on the said deposits shall be paid to the pff. by deft. 1 regularly and he has been paying the said interest accruing on the said deposits to the pff. On 29.5.84, the Court had directed that deft. 1 to 4 should not only pay the arrears of interest but also pay the future interest regularly accruing on the said deposits belonging to the pff. Admittedly the interest amount has not been paid by deft. 1 to 4 since Nov, 1987. Deft. 1 has since expired.

(2.) The present application was moved by the pff. for requiring the said deft. to comply with the orders of this court and on 7.3.1988, the Court directed deft. 2 to 4 to pay arrears of interest which amount came to about Rs. 17,500.00 upto the date of the order and failing which it was directed that show cause notice will stand issued to the deft. 2 to 4 to explain why the contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against them. Counsel for the deft. has argued that this initiation of contempt proceedings is barred by limitation and thus, notice should be discharged. Sec. 20, Contempt of Courts Act lays down that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, deft. 2 to 4 are committing the contempt continuously by wilfully not complying with the order for paying the interest on the said deposits. The interest was not be paid only once but was to be paid continuously. So, on the face of it, the initiation of contempt proceeding against deft. 2 to is not barred by limitation.

(3.) Counsel for the deft. also tried to argue that no order requiring the defts. to pay the interest could have been made by the court as the said firm was not a party to this suit. This court cannot reopen this issue as the order has been made on 29.5.84, requiring defts. 1 to 4 to pay the interest which deft. 1 has undertaken to pay earlier.