Ghanshyam Sarda Vs. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s. JK Jute Mills Co. Ltd. &amp; Others
was done under the express directions and alleged Contemnor No.3. However, such a statement coming from a co-contemnor, in our view, is not sufficient to reach a conclusion about the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.3. Further, the documents pertaining to Writ Petition No.5670 (W) of 2016 pending in Calcutta High Court as well as the affidavit filed by Dinesh Sarda are also not conclusive enough. The criticism that such documents and the affidavit of Dinesh Sarda are conveniently brought on record, would also require assessment of facts. Thus, though there is room to suspect the involvement of said Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, the material on record is not conclusive enough to hold them guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2015. We, therefore, close these proceedings as against them. 24. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014. The law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 that legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the decision in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) are quite instructive and are:- 18.The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke v. Chadbur (1985)1 All ER 211 Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed: I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them. 19.To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah (AIR 1975 Mad 270 ) and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal 220 ). In Century Flour Mills Ltd.(supra) it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order. 20.In Sujit Pal(supra) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law. 21.There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The court must ensure full justice between the parties before it. 25. In the present case the Company and its Directors/servants were certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as found hereinabove, the transferee and its Directors/servants have not violated the Order of 08.05.2014. The transferee and its Directors/servants were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order of 08.05.2014. In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014, this Court had found the transfer in favour of the transferee to be questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter in the light of directions contained in said para 38. In the circumstances, no further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014. Further, according to the record the transferee had parted with full consideration way back on 04.04.2013. In the totality of these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to exercise our power to invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014.
0[ds]The submission of the alleged contemnors is that the conveyance deed was executed on 04.04.2013 on which date the entire consideration stood paid by the transferee and was credited to the account of the Company and as such the title passed in favour of the transferee well before the Order of 08.05.2014 and what was done on 02.07.2014 was a mere ministerial act. According to the alleged contemnors, the documents presented for registration in April 2013 were not accepted for want of adequate stamp and registration fees. This infirmity was removed and the documents were then presented for registration. In such circumstances the order of 08.05.2014 was not in any way violated by them17. The Order of 08.05.2014 had directed ....capital assets of the company shall not be disposed of without taking permission of this Court. The expression shall not be disposed in the context connotes action or process of sale of assets. Going by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, transfer of any tangible immovable property of the value of Rupees hundred and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. The expression `only in the Section is significant. The transfer comes into effect and becomes valid and effective only by a registered instrument. It is true that the document was sought to be registered in April, 2013 but the registration in question was duly effected only on 02.07.2014. In the eyes of law, it is this document registered on 02.07.2014 which alone effectuates transfer of interest in Katihar property in favour of the transferee. The transfer was thus effected on 02.07.2014 i.e. well after the Order of 08.05.201418. The document dated 04.04.2013 did not by itself create any interest nor did the title pass upon execution of such document on 04.04.2013 but it was only after the registration on 02.07.2014 that the title in Katihar property passed from the Company in favour of the transferee. The submission of the contemnors however, is that by virtue of Section 47 of the Registration Act, the document in question would operate from 04.04.2013. In our view, the principle embodied in Section 47 of the Registration Act is completely for different purposes. In so far as the issue of transfer is concerned, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is the governing principle, which is quite clear. It is the date of registration of document which is crucial inasmuch as the transfer is effected and the title passes only upon registration. Viewed thus, it is clear that Katihar property was transferred in the teeth of the Order of 08.05.2014 and ex facie there has been violation of the Order passed by this Court. It is crucial to note that on 08.05.2014, the company had appeared on caveat before this Court and certainly had express knowledge about the Order of 08.05.2014. It was party to the proceedings and was bound by the order passed by this Court in every respect19. The submission on part of alleged Contemnor Nos.1,4,5,6,7 and 8 namely the Company and its directors/servants is that the document was executed by alleged Contemnor No.7 Sobhanand Jha in pursuance of the authority given to him by the Company way back on 06.02.2013. As on 06.02.2013, the company was definitely a sick company and the Reference was pending before the BIFR. Around that time the ASC was constituted which was considering sale of assets including Katihar property. It was only after the Auditors report dated 15.02.2013 that the Company started projecting that its net worth had become positive on which account it ceased to be governed under the provisions of the Act and was outside the jurisdiction of the BIFR. Though this Court rejected such submission in its judgment dated 13.11.2014, at this stage we are considering the bonafides and tenability of the assertions made by the alleged contemnors. There could not have been any occasion for the Company before 19.02.2013, even accepting the submission that it ceased to be a sick company as alleged, to enable the Company to execute an authority on 06.02.2013 in favour of alleged Contemnor No.7. That authorization is wholly defective and unsustainable. It is not the case of the alleged contemnors that after the adoption of the Auditors Report and Directors Report dated 19.02.2013 a decision was taken by the Company to sell or dispose of its Katihar property in pursuance of which due authorization was given to a competent person to execute the documents on behalf of the Company20. Further, the facts on record disclose that said Sobhanand Jha changed his name to R.S. Prabhakar on and with effect from 18.03.2013. However, the document mentioned his name as Sobhanand Jha which he signed as Sobhanand Jha on 04.04.2013. He tendered his resignation on 17.02.2014 as R.S. Prabhakar. Despite such resignation, he thereafter executed the document on 02.07.2014 in the name of Sobhanand Jha and signed as Sobhanand Jha. In any event of the matter as on 02.07.2014, the person was not a Director of the Company. He submitted that the Company had given him an authority way back on 06.02.2013 pursuant to which the document was executed on 04.04.2013 on which date the sale for all practical purposes stood completed and what remained was only a ministerial act which was done by him independently of the Company on 02.07.2014. It is on the basis of this submission that the Company as well as its Directors/servants namely alleged Contemnor Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 seek to wriggle themselves out of any liability for violation of Order of 08.05.2014. If the order was passed on 08.05.2014 restraining any alienation of the capital assets of the Company, the Directors/servants of the company ought to have taken steps to inform alleged Contemnor No.7 to refrain from registering the document on 02.07.2014. Neither such steps were taken nor was the Court informed on 08.05.2014 about the document executed on 04.04.2013, in which event this Court could have passed appropriate Orders including restraint on registration. Similarly, if Sobhanand Jha, alleged Contemnor No.7 had resigned on 17.02.2014, he had no authority to register the document on behalf of the Company. In our view, the entire exercise was a clever device employed by the Company and its Directors, in that, first an authority in favour of a Director was created who then resigned as Director but continued to register the document on the basis of erstwhile authorization and at the same time the person having resigned could claim lack of knowledge of the Order of restraint passed by this Court. Their actions were deliberate and designed to flout the Order of 08.05.2014.The involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.1,4,5,6,7 and 8 in the transfer the assets of the Company in the teeth of the Order of 08.05.2014 is thus apparent and clear21. We now turn to the involvement of those officials concerned with registration, who went ahead and registered the document on 02.07.2014 despite having been put to notice and served with a copy of the Order of 08.05.2014. Our attention has been invited to the opinion rendered by the office of the Advocate General, Bihar to the effect that even if there be any order passed by a civil court in connection with a private dispute between the parties, the registering authorities are bound to register a document presented for registration. This opinion was relied upon by the Government Advocate who then opined that the document in the present case could be registered. The request was allegedly made on 30.06.2014 and the opinion of the Government Advocate was promptly given on 01.07.2014. There is no register maintained diarizing the inward and outward letters and prima facie the entire theory appears to be suspicious and designed to confer a favour. However, since these are government servants, we grant them benefit of doubt and would only caution them. It is shocking that an order passed by this Court, in the face of the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution, could be ignored or disregarded by the officials who went ahead and registered the document. However, we do not find sufficient grounds to invoke our Contempt Jurisdiction to punish them for violation of the Order of 08.05.201422. We now turn to the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.14, 15 and 16 who are the transferee Company and its Directors/servants. These alleged contemnors were neither parties to the proceedings pending in this Court in which Order of 08.05.2014 was passed nor is there any material to indicate that such order was ever served on them or brought to the notice of these alleged contemnors. The role played by alleged Contemnor No.17, however, stands on a different footing. The documents on record do show that he used to represent the Company and was also given authority to collect documents on behalf of the Company from the office of the BIFR. Further, on his own showing, he had gone ahead and registered the document not on the asking of the transferee. He had gone along with the Directors of the Company and on the directions of alleged Contemnor No.3. The knowledge about the passing of Order of 08.05.2014 to the Company and its Directors having been established, there is room for suspecting the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.17. But mere suspicion may not be enough and we give him benefit of doubt. Thus, none of the alleged Contemnor Nos.14 to 17 have been proved to be guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.201423. As regards the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, they were neither Directors nor Shareholders of the Company nor has it been shown that they have any stake or interest in the Transferee Company. It is undoubtedly true that alleged Contemnor No.17 in his affidavit stated that he used to work under the directions of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3 and that the registration of the document on 02.07.2014 was done under the express directions and alleged Contemnor No.3. However, such a statement coming from a, in our view, is not sufficient to reach a conclusion about the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.3. Further, the documents pertaining to Writ Petition No.5670 (W) of 2016 pending in Calcutta High Court as well as the affidavit filed by Dinesh Sarda are also not conclusive enough. The criticism that such documents and the affidavit of Dinesh Sarda are conveniently brought on record, would also require assessment of facts. Thus, though there is room to suspect the involvement of said Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, the material on record is not conclusive enough to hold them guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2015. We, therefore, close these proceedings as against them24. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014. The law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622  that legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction25. In the present case the Company and its Directors/servants were certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as found hereinabove, the transferee and its Directors/servants have not violated the Order of 08.05.2014. The transferee and its Directors/servants were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order of 08.05.2014. In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014, this Court had found the transfer in favour of the transferee to be questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter in the light of directions contained in said para 38. In the circumstances, no further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014. Further, according to the record the transferee had parted with full consideration way back on 04.04.2013. In the totality of these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to exercise our power to invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014.
### Instruction:
Speculate on the likely judgment (yes (1) or no (0) to the appeal) and then delve into the case proceeding to elucidate your prediction, focusing on critical sentences.

### Input:
was done under the express directions and alleged Contemnor No.3. However, such a statement coming from a co-contemnor, in our view, is not sufficient to reach a conclusion about the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.3. Further, the documents pertaining to Writ Petition No.5670 (W) of 2016 pending in Calcutta High Court as well as the affidavit filed by Dinesh Sarda are also not conclusive enough. The criticism that such documents and the affidavit of Dinesh Sarda are conveniently brought on record, would also require assessment of facts. Thus, though there is room to suspect the involvement of said Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, the material on record is not conclusive enough to hold them guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2015. We, therefore, close these proceedings as against them. 24. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014. The law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 that legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the decision in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) are quite instructive and are:- 18.The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke v. Chadbur (1985)1 All ER 211 Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed: I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them. 19.To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah (AIR 1975 Mad 270 ) and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal 220 ). In Century Flour Mills Ltd.(supra) it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order. 20.In Sujit Pal(supra) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law. 21.There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The court must ensure full justice between the parties before it. 25. In the present case the Company and its Directors/servants were certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as found hereinabove, the transferee and its Directors/servants have not violated the Order of 08.05.2014. The transferee and its Directors/servants were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order of 08.05.2014. In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014, this Court had found the transfer in favour of the transferee to be questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter in the light of directions contained in said para 38. In the circumstances, no further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014. Further, according to the record the transferee had parted with full consideration way back on 04.04.2013. In the totality of these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to exercise our power to invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
by the Company and its Directors, in that, first an authority in favour of a Director was created who then resigned as Director but continued to register the document on the basis of erstwhile authorization and at the same time the person having resigned could claim lack of knowledge of the Order of restraint passed by this Court. Their actions were deliberate and designed to flout the Order of 08.05.2014.The involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.1,4,5,6,7 and 8 in the transfer the assets of the Company in the teeth of the Order of 08.05.2014 is thus apparent and clear21. We now turn to the involvement of those officials concerned with registration, who went ahead and registered the document on 02.07.2014 despite having been put to notice and served with a copy of the Order of 08.05.2014. Our attention has been invited to the opinion rendered by the office of the Advocate General, Bihar to the effect that even if there be any order passed by a civil court in connection with a private dispute between the parties, the registering authorities are bound to register a document presented for registration. This opinion was relied upon by the Government Advocate who then opined that the document in the present case could be registered. The request was allegedly made on 30.06.2014 and the opinion of the Government Advocate was promptly given on 01.07.2014. There is no register maintained diarizing the inward and outward letters and prima facie the entire theory appears to be suspicious and designed to confer a favour. However, since these are government servants, we grant them benefit of doubt and would only caution them. It is shocking that an order passed by this Court, in the face of the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution, could be ignored or disregarded by the officials who went ahead and registered the document. However, we do not find sufficient grounds to invoke our Contempt Jurisdiction to punish them for violation of the Order of 08.05.201422. We now turn to the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.14, 15 and 16 who are the transferee Company and its Directors/servants. These alleged contemnors were neither parties to the proceedings pending in this Court in which Order of 08.05.2014 was passed nor is there any material to indicate that such order was ever served on them or brought to the notice of these alleged contemnors. The role played by alleged Contemnor No.17, however, stands on a different footing. The documents on record do show that he used to represent the Company and was also given authority to collect documents on behalf of the Company from the office of the BIFR. Further, on his own showing, he had gone ahead and registered the document not on the asking of the transferee. He had gone along with the Directors of the Company and on the directions of alleged Contemnor No.3. The knowledge about the passing of Order of 08.05.2014 to the Company and its Directors having been established, there is room for suspecting the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.17. But mere suspicion may not be enough and we give him benefit of doubt. Thus, none of the alleged Contemnor Nos.14 to 17 have been proved to be guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.201423. As regards the involvement of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, they were neither Directors nor Shareholders of the Company nor has it been shown that they have any stake or interest in the Transferee Company. It is undoubtedly true that alleged Contemnor No.17 in his affidavit stated that he used to work under the directions of alleged Contemnor Nos.2 and 3 and that the registration of the document on 02.07.2014 was done under the express directions and alleged Contemnor No.3. However, such a statement coming from a, in our view, is not sufficient to reach a conclusion about the involvement of alleged Contemnor No.3. Further, the documents pertaining to Writ Petition No.5670 (W) of 2016 pending in Calcutta High Court as well as the affidavit filed by Dinesh Sarda are also not conclusive enough. The criticism that such documents and the affidavit of Dinesh Sarda are conveniently brought on record, would also require assessment of facts. Thus, though there is room to suspect the involvement of said Contemnor Nos.2 and 3, the material on record is not conclusive enough to hold them guilty of violation of Order of 08.05.2015. We, therefore, close these proceedings as against them24. We now come to the crucial question as to the effect of transfer or alienation of Katihar property in violation of the Order of 08.05.2014. The law on the point is well settled in the decision of this Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622  that legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction25. In the present case the Company and its Directors/servants were certainly guilty of transgressing or violating the Order of 08.05.2014 but as found hereinabove, the transferee and its Directors/servants have not violated the Order of 08.05.2014. The transferee and its Directors/servants were neither parties to the proceedings nor were they served with the Order of 08.05.2014. In para 38 of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014, this Court had found the transfer in favour of the transferee to be questionable and had relegated the matter to the BIFR to consider the matter in the light of directions contained in said para 38. In the circumstances, no further orders are called for invalidating the registration dated 02.07.2014. Further, according to the record the transferee had parted with full consideration way back on 04.04.2013. In the totality of these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to exercise our power to invalidate the effect of registration of the document on 02.07.2014.
