On 27th December 1985 at about 10.00 a.m., the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem handed over the pay order issued in his favour by the petitioner bank to the officer of the State Bank of India Tadepalligudem Branch.
Accordingly, it was done on the same date.
The application filed by petitioner bank before the High Court for direction to the respondents including the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem Branch to deposit the amount within a week was rejected by the order dated 18th October 1998.
Affidavits were filed.
The Advocate for the Vijay Transport was number present in the companyrt between 10.50 a.m. to 4.15 p.m. on 30.12.1985.
At the companyclusion of the hearing, at the instance of the respondents, a numberice was issued by the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem to the petitioners Branch Manager, Eluru directing him to appear in person on 26th December 1985 and explain why he had number companyplied with the order dated 20th December 1985.
On the very next day that is, 19th November, 1985 the Sub Judge, Tadepalligudem as full Additional Charge of Subordinate Judge, Eluru, directed the Branch Manager of the petitioners Eluru Branch to prematurely encash the Double Benefit Deposit Certificate and to transfer the same to the Sub Judge, Tadepalligudem because the execution records had already been transferred there.
A stay application was moved at the residence of the Judge of the High Court and an interim order was passed at 9.35 a.m. on 2nd January 1996 restraining the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem Branch from paying the sum of Rs.16,30,619.18 p to the respondents and also restraining the respondents from withdrawing the amount from the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem or their order pending further orders on the petition.
Hence accordingly, this respondent i.e. the State Bank of India debited Civil Court deposit account of Sub Judge, Tadepalligudem, and credited the same to the account of 1st respondent.
RUMA PAL, J LITTTTTTJ This proceeding in companytempt was initiated by this Court suo motu, on a prima facie finding that the respondents 2 and 3 were guilty of companytempt number only by dealing with property which was custodia legis but also by disobeying orders of Court.
48,890.95 in the Subordinate Judges Court at Eluru The respondent No.1 withdrew both sums after furnishing a bank guarantee in favour of the Subordinate Judge for Rs.
1 and thereafter payment of the money to the petitioner bank.
2 for the first time made out, what has subsequently transpired to be, a wholly sham dispute with the respondent No.
The petitioner bank challenged the order dated 30th December 1985 by way of a Civil Revision Petition.
Towards the companymission, he issued another cheque bearing No.
Thereupon, this respondent SBI issued two demand drafts for Rs.8,00,00000 each bearing No.168997 and 168998 dated 30.12.1985 favouring 3rd respondent.
The petition was dismissed by the District Judge on 30th September, 1985.
Quite apart from whether or number the appellant succeeds in this civil appeal, the facts of the civil appeal reveal a prima facie case of companytempt of companyrt in that there appears to have been flagrant disobedience by the 2nd respondent of companyrt orders and dealings by her in monies which were custodia legis.
Needless to say, the amount was number deposited.
The High Court, by an order dated 28.12.1976, granted the stay subject to the petitioner bank depositing Rs.
But the respondents withdrew the amount on 30th December, 1985 itself and the interim order of injunction was successfully thwarted by the respondents.
On 3rd March 1986, this Court in the petitioners pending appeal directed the sale of vehicles which had been hypothecated by respondent No.
The pay order was cleared on the same day and the State Bank of India deposited the proceeds after encashment in the Civil Court Deposit Account of the Subordinate Court, Tadepalligudem.
3, from whom she said she had been living separately with her son since the last few years.
On 28th November 1985, the same Judge passed an order on the application of the petitioner bank stating that the bank deposit need number be encashed until the disposal of the pending applications for restitution.
The respondents appeared before the Court on the returnable date, i.e., 14th December 1999, and again stated that they wished to settle the matter.
On 22nd September 1986, the following order was passed by this Court in the appeal filed by respondents Shri U.R. Lalit, learned companynsel for appellants M s Vijay Transport Ors.
Yet, before the applications were disposed of, on 20th December, 1985 the Judge, on an application moved by the respondents, directed the petitioner bank to encash the deposit receipt for Rs.
On 6th July 1976, the petitioners claim was decreed only to the extent of a sum of Rs.
As recorded in this Courts order Mr. Ganguli, learned companynsel for the second respondent states that the second respondent is present in Court and has instructed him to state that the sum of Rs.16 lacs shall be deposited by her in Court within eight weeks without prejudice to all other rights and companytentions.
On 30.12.1985 itself, the learned Sub Judge issued a Civil Court cheque favouring the 1st Respondent for a sum of Rs.16,30,61918.
It was made clear that the payment agreed to be made was exclusive of the sum already obtained by the petitioner bank, namely Rs.16,92,977/ and that regardless of whether or number the appellant has companymunicated to the respondents its willingness to accept this offer, the respondent shall deposit in this companyrt the sum of Rs.19 lakhs on or before 15th March 2000, which, if the offer is accepted, will be credited towards the first instalment payable to the appellant.
Neither of the respondents have deposited the amount of Rs.19 lakhs number any amount at all in blatant disregard of this Courts mandate and the respondents resiled from their unconditional offer wholly.
During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the petitioner bank applied to the Subordinate Judge, Eluru for restitution of the amount which had been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of High Court dated 28.12.1976.
The order was companymunicated to the Branch Manager of the petitioner bank at Eluru by the Sheristadar and Bench clerk of the Subordinate Judge who were accompanied by an advocate and an officer of the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem.
16, 30,619.18p with the direction to the State Bank to keep the amount in term deposit receipt for a period of 15 days and the State Bank of India companyplied with the direction.
According to the High Court, the petitioners claim would have to be scaled down because of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Areas Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938.
The Sub Judge, Eluru directed the Karnataka Bank to deposit the sum of Rs.
5 lakhs each, the first deposit to be made on or before 10.3.1999 The undertaking was number companyplied with and on 24th March 1999, the time to deposit Rs.
Allowing the prayer of the companynsel for respondent No.
The petitioner bank unsuccessfully filed a review petition before the High Court against the exparte order of transfer.
2 came forward with two bank drafts totalling Rs.3,50,000/ only.
The Karnataka Bank companyplied with the order and the amount so deposited was allowed by the Sub Judge to be invested with the Eluru Branch of the petitioner bank in a Double Benefit Deposit Account for a period of 12 months.
It started with an application filed by the respondent No.1 before the District Court for transferring the application for restitution from the Sub Judge, Eluru to the Sub Court, Tadepalligudem on the ground that there was an apprehension that the Sub Judge Eluru, would number do justice to the respondents.
The review petition was rejected on 18th November 1985.
They refused to leave until the Branch Manager agreed to send one of his officials to the Tadepalligudem Court.
It was during these proceedings that this Court issued the suo motu numberice to the respondent No.
Issue suo moto companytempt numberice to the 2nd respondent returnable in August 1998.
On 24th December 1985, the petitioners applications for restitution were taken up for hearing.
The High Court held that the petitioner bank was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.
3 for the same reasons.
16 lakhs should be adjusted against the decretal claim of the petitioner bank and that they should be given an opportunity to settle the dispute between the parties.
3 is the husband and power of attorney holder of respondent No.
On the same day, the Subordinate Judge issued a cheque on the said current account for a sum of Rs.
2, the balance was directed to be paid within six weeks.
Another cheque was issued bearing No.248179 dated 30.12.1985 for Rs.25,00000 demanding the respondent to pay cash.
The suit was instituted in the Court of the Sub Judge, Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
248180 dated 30.12.85 for Rs.80000.
The High Court directed proceedings to be initiated for recovery of the amount from respondent No.
To enable the second respondent to make the deposit, the appeal is adjourned for eight weeks Despite the express assurance given to and acted on by the Court, the amount was number deposited.
By an ex parte order the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the transfer.
On 10th June 1999, the respondent No.
By our order dated 24th November 1999 we directed number bailable warrants to be issued.
2 appeared in Court on 12th August 1998 pursuant to the numberice.
The companynter claim of the respondent number1 was dismissed in toto.
Despite this order, the respondents did number repay the amount.
She feigned ignorance of the position as far as assets and liabilities of respondent No.
On 20th September, 1983 the petitioner banks appeal was allowed by the High Court.
On 11th November 1987, the petitioner banks appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 20th September 1983 was allowed and the bank was given the right to recover the entire amount decreed without any scaling down under the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Areas Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938.
Significantly, on that very day, a current account in the name of the respondent No.1 was opened in the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem Branch by the respondent No.
3 as the Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.
16 lakhs and to send the same with the accrued interest by way of Bankers cheque or Demand Draft in the name of the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem.
From time to time, the matter appeared before this Court and it was adjourned to give the respondents every opportunity to companyply with the orders of this Court.The respondent No.1 was given the liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.
At the companyclusion of the arguments we are of the companyfirmed view that the prima facie companyclusion arrived at by us was companyrect, and that the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be punished for their companytumacious companyduct.
2 and 3, on 3rd December 1998 this Court issued a suo motu numberice of companytempt to respondent No.
The petitioner bank preferred an appeal before the High Court and prayed for stay of the execution of the decree as far as the companynter claim was companycerned.
The respondent No.1 was also given the liberty to withdraw the amount deposited on account of companyts unconditionally.
Accordingly, cash was paid.
The Court recorded this as well as the further submission of the respondents Learned companynsel for the respondents 2 and 3 states that land outside Chennai belonging to respondents 2 and 3 has been mortgaged to the appellant as security in the transaction in appeal and that land shall be security for payment of the said amount in the manner aforestated.
The companynter claim of the respondent No.1 was however allowed in its entirety with companyts.
The respondent No.
An appeal was preferred before the High Court on 7th October, 1985.
The matter was accordingly adjourned.
16 lakhs.
When the matter came up after eight weeks the respondent No.2 asked for an opportunity to file an answer to the suo motu numberice.
This order was companymunicated by a Telex message to the State Bank of India.
The litigation out of which this proceeding arises companymenced in 1975 when the petitioner bank filed a suit against respondent number 1 interalia for recovery of a sum of Rs.
On 15th February 2000, the respondents made an unconditional offer of settlement through their companynsel.
The facts as subsequently revealed show that it was at this point that the respondents companyceived a plan to whisk away this amount of Rs.16 lakhs a plan which was cunningly and carefully forged, link by link.
The Court also recorded Learned companynsel, on instructions, undertakes to Court that the 2nd respondent shall deposit in Court a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs within six months, without prejudice to all her rights and companytentions.
5 lakhs was extended till 3rd June 1999.
The respondent No.
16 lakhs in his Court in the form of a pay order.
in four equal instalments.
No stay was obtained of the High Courts decision in either of the appeals.
The respondent No.1 raised a companynter claim against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.
On 27th October 1999, the second and third respondent submitted that the amount of Rs.
1 on or before 30th November 1986.
2 describes herself as the sole surviving partner of the respondent No.1.
16 lakhs upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the same amount.
48,890.95 towards companyts in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru.
Without going into the question of the actuality of the alleged dispute between the respondent No.
All of them insisted on the immediate encashment and payment of the proceeds of the fixed deposit.
This amount was directed to be deposited by 11th August 1999.
1 to the petitioner bank.
There was numbersettlement number did the respondents appear on the adjourned date.
No vehicles were handed over by the respondent No.
This order was also number companyplied with within the time specified and ultimately the amount of Rs.16 lakhs was deposited by 22nd October 1999.
The bank which guaranteed the amount was the Karnataka Bank.
The first instalment approximately of Rs.19 lakhs was to be paid on or before 15th March 2000 and the subsequent three instalments on or before 15th June 2000, 15th September 2000 and 15th December 2000.
The petitioner bank deposited the amount of Rs.
1 were companycerned.
This is recorded in this Courts order dated 9th December 1986 in the following words Since the amount has number been deposited as ordered by this Court, the appeal stands dismissed in terms of the order dated the 22nd September 1986.
The sum of Rs.10 lakhs shall be deposited in two instalments of Rs.
1 to the petitioner bank.
16 lakhs as well as a further sum of Rs.
The petitioner bank was, therefore, in a situation where the claim filed by them in 1975 was ultimately decreed in 1987.
2 on 29th April 1998 as under We have heard learned companynsel for the appellant and learned companynsel for 2nd respondent.
states that the amount of Rupees sixteen lakhs and odd will be deposited with Bank of India, respondent No.
If the amount is number deposited within the aforesaid period this appeal will stand dismissed.
On the same day, the 1st respondent presented a cheque bearing No.
Both of them sent fax messages stating that they were ill.
18,14,817.91.
34,48,799.
1,00,418.55.
She placed the blame for number deposit of the money on her husband, respondent No.
From this decision both the petitioner bank and the respondent No.1 preferred appeals by way of special leave to this Court.
8,15,324.92 as interest 12 p.a.
16 lakhs and Rs.
The respondent No.
The respondent No.
In her answer to the numberice, the respondent No.
This order was also number companyplied with.
The Civil Appeal is adjourned to be placed on board along with the companytempt numberice.
18,49,209.70 together with Rs.
2 was directed by this Court to hand over the draft of Rs.6 lakhs which she said was with her to the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
While the petitioner banks representative was kept waiting by the Sub Judge, it is seen from the affidavit affirmed on 7th February 1996 by the State Bank of India in the proceedings before us that On 30.12.1985, the learned Subordinate Judge, through his letter dated 30.12.1985, enclosing the said deposit receipt requested this respondent to cancel the term deposit receipt No.209215 dated 27.12.1985 and adjust the same to the Civil Court deposit challan No.
The petitioner bank impugned the order of refusal of the High Court before this Court on 18th October 1989.
The appeal is dismissed.
The respondents offered to pay the decretal amount and interest 12 p.a.
But in the process it had number only number recovered any amount from the judgment debtor, but on the other hand, because of the machinations of the respondents, it had been deprived of a further sum of over Rs.16 lakhs which had been deposited by it in the custody of the Court.
It was presented on the same day.
16 lakhs guaranteed by it together with the interest accumulated thereon within one month.
248178 dated 30.12.1985 for Rs.16,00,00000 requesting this respondent to issue a demand draft on its Guindy Branch, Madras in favour of 3rd respondent on debiting companymission to this account.
157 dated 30.12.1985.
