BANK OF INDIA Vs. SENIOR TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,07,39,807. 77 plus interest and costs. By this suit, the plaintiff bank is inter alia seeking to realise various securities created by the 1st defendant in its favour including the security created in respect of the premises described in Exhibit H to the plaint. The said premises consist of Shop No. 6-A and 7-A forming part of the building known as Mamta Building situate at Prabhadevi, Bombay.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, this notice of motion was was taken out by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment company the respondent No. 1, only. Subsequently, by an amendment made in this notice of motion with the leave of the Court, Mr. Ramesh Ahuja, partner of M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment Company, has been impleaded in this proceeding. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff is seeking an order of punishment against defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 1-a under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that the said individuals have wilfully, deliberately and contemptuosly interfered with and/or obstructed the possession of the Court Receiver in respect of the abovereferred premises by creating and/or attempting to create third party rights in respect thereof. In substance, it is alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 1-A were not in possession of the said premises or any part thereof when the Court Receiver took charge and they have been inducted in the premises only in April 1989 by defendant No. 2, who was merely permitted user thereof in view of the defendant No. 1 having been appointed by the Court as an agent of the Receiver and the wrongful act consists of causing interference and intermeddling with the premises which were custodia legis by a third party who also asserts rights to use the said premises under an agreement dated 21st April 1989 executed between respondent No. 1-A and defendant No. 2.

(3.) THIS notice of motion involves consideration of the following two questions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :--