V AMARENDER RAO Vs. PATLEM SURYA PRAKASH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 filed by the contemnor who has been held guilty of violating orders of this Court made in WP MP No. 2333 of 2005 in WP No. 23156 of 2004, dated 8. 2. 2005 as per the orders in CC No. 525 of 2006, dated 17. 9. 2007 and imposing simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, which gave rise to these proceedings are that the respondent is the petitioner who filed a writ under Section 226 of the constitution of India in WP No. 23156 of 2004, as against the appellant herein, assailing the order dated 6. 12. 2004 of the Reserve bank of India cancelling the license of the prudential Co-operative Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank') in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Banking regulation Act and also the consequential order passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative societies appointing the appellant herein as the Liquidator of the Bank. While the said writ petition was pending, the Bank after obtaining permission from the State government, introduce a scheme of One time Settlement (for short 'ots Scheme' ). Thereupon, the respondent-petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in WPMP no. 2333 of 2005 in the said writ petition and in pursuance of which this Court passed the orders on 8. 2. 2005 granting interim suspension of the said OTS Scheme. However, ultimately the main writ petition along with other connected matters was disposed of by a common order dated 5. 5. 2005, whereby the said writ petition was partly allowed setting aside both, the aforesaid orders of winding up by the Reserve Bank of India and consequential order of the registrar appointing the respondent as a liquidator, and the said interlocutory application in WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 was also dismissed. Thereupon, an appeal in wa No. 1053 of 2005 was filed aggrieved against the orders allowing the writ in part. At the time of the filing of the present contempt proceedings, the said writ appeal was pending and the matter was heard and reserved for orders.

(3.) THE grievance of the respondent/petitioner in the contempt proceedings was that inspite of the aforesaid interim orders, the appellant herein as the Liquidator had extended the benefit of OTS Scheme to some of the borrowers viz. , Y. Rajiv Reddy and his associates and thereby has violated the interim orders in the said interlocutory application in WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 dated 8. 2. 2005, and therefore, sought for punishing the appellant for the contempt of Court.