PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. MAHITT INDIA PVT.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Notice to show -cause was given to J.D., Nos. 2 and 3 on 3 -5 -1993 for not abiding by the undertakings given by them on 24 -8 -1992, which were accepted by this Court by the order of the same day. The order dated 24 -8 -1992 is : "Accepting the undertakings given by judgment debtor Nos. 2 and 3 in their statements recorded separately, it is ordered that arrears of Rs. 70,000 plus instalments of Rs. 10,000 per month from September will be paid by judgment debtor No. 3 by or before 31st December, 1992, An amount of Rs. 3,00,000 will also be deposited in lump sum on or before 30th April, 1993 by judgment debtor Nos. 2 and 3. Further order on OMP Nos. 221 and 319 of J992 and the notice of contempt issued to judgment debtor 3 will be passed on the next date of hearing. Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for the decree holder bank, states that the decree holder bank may be associated if the property at Rewari (Haryana) is sold by judgment debtors and Smt. Kanta Devi wife of judgment debtor No.2. This submission will be considered on the next date of hearing It is also made clear that order of monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000 was passed by way of interim arrangement. List on 31st December, 1992."

(2.) The undertaking given by J.D. No. 2, Rameshwar Dass was : - "I am chairman of judgment debtor No.1 company. It is correct that for the loan amount for which decree was passed against all of us, my house No, 2536 situated in Basti Kunj Gali Champa Niketan Rewari, Jiwali Bazar, Rewari was mortgaged with the decree holder Bank and 1 had transferred it to my wife Smt Kanta Devi during the pendency of this litigation, I am ready and willing to liquidate the decretal amount and either get this property retransferred in my name or persuade my wife Smt. Kanta Devi to sell it and pay the decretal amount. I and my son judgment debtor No. 3 Sh. M. P. Rustogi who is present in the Court today will file affidavit(s) stating how we propose to liquidate the decretal amount, within a period of four months, I undertake to deposit three lacs rupees (Rs. 3,00,000) up to 30th April, 1993. I understand that if I do not abide by this undertaking, contempt proceedings can be started against me." Similarly, the undertaking given by J.D. No. 3, M.P. Rustogi was: - "I could not abide by the undertaking given by me which was accepted on 6 -8 -1991 for the reasons stated in my application filed in the Registry today. Admittedly, I was to pay Rs. l,30,0u0 till August, 1992 out of which I have only paid Rs. 60,000 till today. The remaining amount of Rs. 70,000 I shall clear by or before 31st December, 1992. In addition, I undertake to go on paying monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000 regularly. I have heard the undertaking given by judgment debtor No. 2 and I also undertake to ensure the fulfilment of the undertaking by judgment debtor No. 2. I understand that if I do not abide by this undertaking, contempt proceedings can be taken against me." As mentioned in the order dated 24 -8 -1992, J.D. No. 3 was already facing notice to show -cause why contempt proceedings be not started against him for disobeying the order dated 6 -8 -1991. This order is : - "Affidavits as well as undertakings on behalf of J.D. Nos. 2 and 3 are filed. Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for judgment debtor Nos. I and 3, states on instructions received from Sh. M.P. Rustogi, J.D. No. 3, that an amount of Rs. 10,000 was deposited on 17th July, 1991 with the plaintiff -Bank. As per the undertakings, the judgment debtors will go on depositing Rs. 10,000 by or before 10 of each month subject to any further order made in this regard. - The undertaking of M.P Rustogi, by way of his affidavit dated 30 -7 -1991 is on the file of OMP No. 513 of 1989 in the Execution Petition.

(3.) The background in which J.D. Nos.2 and 3 gave the undertakings on 24 -8 -1992 is recapitulated to find out whether they had given the undertakings in good faith or just to gain time or to hoodwink the Court. In Civil Suit No. 27 of 1985, ex parte preliminary decree was passed against the J. Ds. as far back as on 16 -3 -1987 in the following terms : "It is ordered that for the reasons given in the judgment dated 16 -3 -1987 an ex parte preliminary decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,88,159.87 Paise with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 13.5% with quarterly rests against the defendants who will be liable to pay the same jointly and severally. The defendants are directed to pay into the Court the aforesaid amount within the next four months failing which the plaintiff -Bank will be entitled to apply for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property. It is further ordered that in case the proceedings of the sale of the mortgaged property are found insufficient to satisfy the final decree the plaintiff will be entitled to recover the balance amount from other properties of the defendants. It is further ordered and decreed that defendants shall also pay the proportionate costs of this suit amounting to Rs. 6419.60 paise to the plaintiff."