DEUTSCHE BANK A G BANKING CORPORATION INCORPORATED GERMANY AND BOMBAY Vs. DEUTSCHE BANK A G BANKING CORPORATION INCORPORATED GERMANY AND BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Contempt Petitions were disposed of by common order since the parties are the same and they relate to the same facts. The Contempt Petitions were disposed of by Justice Lodha on 23rd and 29th January, 1998. The facts giving rise to these Petitions have been narrated in the judgment dated 23rd and 29th January, 1998 by Justice Lodha. It is necessary to narrate them here for the purpose of getting to know the real issues involved.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3 issued three cheques for amounts of Rs.17 lacs. 15 lacs and 15 lacs towards their liability of outstanding loans and other facilities extended by the Bank. The said three cheques in all amounting to Rs.47 lacs which were duly signed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein were dishonoured for insufficient funds. This led to the filing of three Criminal Complaints by the Petitioner Bank before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 37th Esplanade Court, Bombay. In all the three complaints the concerned Magistrate issued process which was challenged before the High Court in three different Criminal Applications. In the said Criminal Applications. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted consent terms and admitted their liability of Rs.49,95,500.60 towards the Petitioner Bank together with interest thereon at @ 25% per annum from 31st October, 1991 till full payment and realisation to the Bank. The Respondents undertook in the said consent terms that, the said amount of Rs.49,95,500.60 together with interest @ 25% per annum from 31.10.91 shall be repaid to the Petitioner Bank by paying Rs. 5 lacs on or before 31st December 1991. Rs. 15 lacs on or before 29th February 1992 and the entire balance together with upto date interest and the balance remaining due and payable on or before 31st March 1992. In terms of the consent terms, the High Court disposed of all the three Criminal Applications on 28.11.91. By further consent terms dated 12th February 1992, the period of payment as undertook by the Respondents was extended by further undertakings of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the balance amount of Rs.49,95,500.60 was to be paid with interest @ 25% per annum by paying Rs.15 lacs on or before 17th February 1992. Rs.15 lacs on or before 20th March 1992 and the entire balance together with interest on or before 20th April 1992. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also undertook to pay additional interest @ 5% per annum for the extended time.

(3.) THE Contempt Petitions were argued before Mr. Justice Lodha. It appears from the judgment dated 23rd and 29th January, 1998 that the learned Counsel appearing for the Contemnors made various submissions. He urged that the consent terms dated 28.11.91 and 12.2.92 were in the nature of agreements between the parties and therefore, for-non compliance of the said consent terms the contempt proceedings were misconceived and the Respondents cannot be held guilty of civil contempt under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He also urged that in the order dated 28.11.91 passed by the High Court, the undertakings given by Respondents contemnors have not been specifically accepted and in terms of the second consent terms filed on 12.2.92 even no order has been passed. He also urged that after the consent terms were filed and undertakings were furnished the contemnors have paid a sum of Rs.22 lacs to the Bank and, therefore, it cannot be said that Respondents have not complied with the undertakings willfully and deliberately. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rita Markandey vs. Surjit Singh Arora, reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 14 was also cited.