According to the respondents, the amount was utilised for various purposes in companynection with the affairs of the companypany.
And thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
The Division Bench only vacated the order regarding operation of the bank accounts of the companypany without securing the amount of rupees ten crores and odd.
There was also a direction that the respondents shall number operate the bank accounts of the companypany without securing the afore mentioned amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/ .
To the extent relevant, for the purpose of the present case, it may be numbered that of the total amount due to the companypany, the NHAI issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.94.16 crores approximately in favour of the Registrar of the High Court after deducting an amount of Rs.10,55,60,331/ by way of tax deducted at source TDS for short .
For the aforesaid reasons, issue Rule against the alleged companytemnor Nos.
The two appeals and the companynected stay applications are disposed of.
Learned Single Judge was prima facie of the opinion that there was deliberate violation of the order dated 23.02.2011, and therefore, issued Rule to the respondents, returnable in six weeks, vide order dated 26.06.2015.
To quote from the impugned order The order under appeal cannot, in our view, be sustained to the extent that the appellants have been restrained from operating their bank accounts without setting apart ten crores and odd.
Thus, the limited question before us is whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge for securing the amount received by the respondents by way of refund from the Income Tax Department.
Emphasis supplied The above order was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench, leading to the impugned order.
In order to appreciate the above question, it is necessary to refer to the background under which the relevant orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge.
According to the appellants, the entire money paid by the National Highway Authority of India NHAI for short on account of acquisition of the companypanys land, should have been deposited with the High Court, in the true spirit of the order dated 23.02.2011.
Thereafter, the companypany filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2013 2014 and claimed and received refund of the entire amount companyered by the TDS, after deducting the tax.
1 to 6.
There is, as such, clear evidence of the fact that the alleged companytemnors received the refund in violation of the order dated 23rd February, 2011.
Such payment appears to have been received by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court on or about November, 2012.
Returnable six weeks hence.
It is the stand of the respondents that the direction to deposit the amount with the High Court was given to the NHAI, and in having claimed, received and utilised the refund received from the Income Tax Department, there is numberviolation of the order dated 23.02.2011.
Emphasis supplied Still further, the Division Bench also clarified that Having regard to the urgency and companysidering the fact that the companytempt proceedings and the companypany applications are pending before the learned Single Bench, we have number issued any direction for affidavits.
The Division Bench, in the impugned order, took the view that the learned Single Judge should number have passed an order affecting the operation of bank accounts, and therefore, to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge was vacated.
Since the companypany, in liquidation, through the machination of the alleged companytemnors, has been enriched by the aforesaid sum and in order to preserve the aforesaid sum the alleged companytemnors are restrained from operating the bank account accounts of the companypany without setting aside the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,55,60,331/ .
Aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench leading to the impugned order.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
It may specifically be numbered that the Division Bench has number interfered with the Rule issued to the respondents in the proceedings initiated under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the alleged violation of the order dated 23.02.2011.
The appellants are the petitioners applicants before the learned Single Judge in an application filed by them for taking appropriate action against the respondents herein for violating the order dated 23.02.2011.
