Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. R.K. Enterprises, (SC) BS115652

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. R.K. Enterprises, (SC) BS115652 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- D.P. Mohapatra, J. and P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 139/1991. D/d. 22.1.2002.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

R.K. Enterprises - Respondent

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 2(c), 11 & 12 Appellant inviting tenders for purchase of certain plates - Offer sent to Respondent, the highest bidder failed to deposit money within stipulated time - Stock sold to other party on 14.5.1990 - Respondent preferring writ - On 17.5.1990 status quo order passed - Order communicated to the office of Appellant No. 2 on 18.5.1990 after closing hours - Stenographer placing the letter/order on the table of appellant No. 2 on 19.5.1990 - Appellant No. 2 on casual leave on 19.5.1990 - 20.5.1990 a Sunday - Allegations that on 18.5.1990 part of stock sold - High Court punishing appellant No. 2 for contempt of court - Held, there was no deliberate or wilful violation of status quo order - Appeal allowed.

[Para ]

ORDER

1. Heard Shri Jayant Das, learned senior counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent despite service of notice.

2. In this appeal filed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the 'Act') the judgment of the Orissa High Court holding the appellant No. 2 guilty of civil contempt and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment of one day is under challenge.

3. The facts leading to the present proceedings may be stated thus:

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. by the notice dated 4.1.1990 invited tenders for purchase of 459 MTS of plates and steel plates. In pursuance of the said notice, tenders were received. They were opened on the 10th of January, 1990 and offer of sale was sent to the highest tenderer, M/s. R.K. Enterprises, respondent herein, giving it seven days' time for depositing the amount. Since the respondent failed to deposit the requisite amount offers were made to different parties and it was decided that the stock will be sold to some other parties, including M/s. Indian Metal & Furrow Alloys. The sale was concluded on 14.5.90. Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition, OJC No. 1687/90 challenging the sale to Indian Metal & Furrow Alloys and others. In that case the division bench of the High Court passed an interim order on 17.5.90 which reads as follows:

"Heard. Issue notice to the opposite parties. Status-quo as on date be maintained."

4. Certified copy of the order was received by the respondent on 18.5.90. The certified copy of the order alongwith the letter of the advocate appearing for the respondent bearing No. 1687/90 dated 18.5.90 was delivered at the office of the appellant No. 2 who was the branch manager of the sales office of the SAIL at Bhubneshwar. The communication was received by Shri B.B. Patta who was the stenographer attached to the regional manager, fertilizer section. Since the office was closed by that time Shri B.B. Patta received the communication he kept the letter with himself and placed it on the office table of the appellant No. 2 on 19.5.90. However, on that day appellant No. 2 was on casual leave and 20th was a Sunday. Appellant No. 2 attended office on 21.5.90. Undisputedly no further transaction in any form was made after 21.5.90.

5. The respondent alleged that on 19.5.90 a part of the stock, sold to the parties Indian Metal & Furrow Alloys & others, was delivered and 27 metric tonnes out of 70 metric tonnes were delivered ignoring the interim order passed by the High Court. On such allegation he sought intervention of the court to punish the appellant No. 2 for contempt of court for deliberate violation of the Court's order.

6. Replying to the show cause notice issued by the Court appellant No. 2 stated, inter alia, that the sale transaction in favour of M/s. Indian metal & Furrow Alloys and others, was concluded as early as 14.5.90. On 19th May, 1990 when the letter sent by the advocate of the writ petitioner, respondent herein, was received the appellant No. 2 was on casual leave and on resuming duty on 21.5.90 and on perusing the letter and the order of the High Court he immediately issued instructions that no further delivery of the stock should be made and the instruction was duly carried out. In these circumstances, he pleaded innocence and prayed that the notice of contempt may be discharged.

7. The High Court in the impugned order took a different view on the fact situation of the case. In paragraph-6 of the order, the High Court taking note of some of the facts noted earlier observed:

"We are also inclined to believe that opposite party No. 2 must have been shown the copy of this Court order on 18th as is the case of the petitioner, and the document must have been handed over to Mr. Patta while he was in the office at the reception counter on being asked by the opposite party to hand over the letter at the reception counter. Time being the essence of the matter, we are prepared to believe that the petitioner must have brought this Court's order to the notice of the opposite party as early as possible to protect his interest."

8. We have perused the reply to the show cause notice filed by appellant No. 2 and the affidavit filed by Sri B.B. Patta. We find that all that Sri B.B. Patta had stated is that he received the letter of the advocate to which was annexed a copy of the order passed by the High Court on 18.5.90 after closure of the office and in such a situation he placed the said communication on the office table of the appellant No. 2 on the next day i.e. 19.5.90. The High Court, in our view, was not right in reading the averment in the affidavit of Sri B.B. Patta that the document must have been handed over to Sri Patta while he was in office on being asked by the opposite party to hand over the letter at the reception counter. The inference drawn by the High Court, we are constrained to observe, is not based on any discussion of material on record nor has any such material been placed before us. The further assumption of the High Court in paragraph-6 of the order that the time being the essence of the matter, the petitioner must have brought this Court's order to the notice of the opposite party as early as possible to protect his interest, does not, in our view, lend support to the case of the respondent herein. Indeed the respondent brought the order of the High Court to the notice of the party concerned at the earliest inasmuch as the certified copy of the order was obtained on 18.5.90 and by the time it could have been sent to Bhubneshwar the usual office hour was over. On 19.5.90 the communication was placed on the office table of appellant No. 2, as fairly stated by Sri Patta. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case emerging from the records the finding of the High Court that appellant No. 2 committed contempt of court by deliberately and wilfully violating the order of status quo passed on 17.5.90 is clearly un-supportable. Further, Mr. Jayant Das has drawn our attention to the order passed by the High Court on 19.9.91 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a suit for realising the damages.

9. On the discussions in the preceding paragraph and for the reasons stated therein, the appeal is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside. No costs.