Holding

The respondents committed gross contempt of the Supreme Court by willfully disobeying the order to furnish security and by misleading the Court, and were sentenced to imprisonment.

Summary

Maruti Udyog Ltd. sued the directors of Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. for failing to pay advances obtained from customers. The dispute was referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court, which ordered the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs 7.63 crore. The respondents neither provided the guarantee nor disclosed that the only property they owned was encumbered, and they sold a flat while misleading the Court about the value of a Secunderabad land. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s order. The Court held that the respondents’ non‑compliance, false statements and concealment of material facts amounted to gross contempt of the Supreme Court under Article 129 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970, and sentenced the managing director to six months’ imprisonment and another director to three months’ imprisonment, while taking no action against the resigned director.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to furnish the bank guarantee ordered by the arbitrator and the Supreme Court constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court under Article 129 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970.
Whether the respondents' misrepresentation and suppression of material facts amount to gross contempt.
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable despite the arbitral award being against the company only.
Whether imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for the contempt committed.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. Section 17, s. Section 8, s. Section 9
Constitution of Indias. Article 129

Subjects

Contempt of Supreme CourtArticle 129ArbitrationBank guaranteeMisrepresentationProperty salePunishmentSupreme Court jurisdictionContempt of Courts Act

Judgment

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED A
V.
MAHINDER C. MEHTA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 10, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.]

,. Contempt ofCourts Act, 1970/Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996/Constitution ofIndia, 1950; Article 129:
Contempt-Advances obtained by respondents from customers
c
on behalf of petitioner-car manufacturer-Amount not paid to
petitioner--lnvoking of arbitration agreement-Supreme Court
referring the dispute to arbitrator-Arbitrator ordering respondents
to furnish security-Non compliance-Contempt Petition-Held:
D
Despite undertaking given before this Court, the alleged contemnors
>- did not furnish any bank guarantee-Application for modification
dismissed-Property in possession ofContemnor No.3 sold by them-
They not only suppressed material facts but also made wrong
representation regarding the value ofproperty allegedly possessed by
them-Thus, the alleged contemnors have misled this Court and have E
committed gross contempt of this Court-It is a fit case to invoke
jurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 129 ofthe Constitution as also
under provisions of 1970 Act-Contemnors directed to undergo
~ imprisonment as indicated in the judgments except contemnor No.3
who had resigned as director ofthe Company. F

Respondents were Directors of a Company. The Company
obtained various advances from the customers on behalf of the
petitioner, a car manufacturer. It, however, did not pay the amount
to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery thereof. The G
f respondents filed an application purported to be under Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Single Judge of the High
Court rejected the application. An appeal preferred thereagainst by
the respondents before a Division Bench of the High Court was also
933 H
\

934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. \
,r·t
A dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court.
)--
This Court vide its order dated 6.09.2002 referred the subject
matter of the dispute to the arbitration of a former Chief Justice of
this Court. The Arbitrator vide its order dated 25.03.2003 issued a
direction upon the respondents to furnish certain amount of bank
B guarantee. An award was made on 10.04.2005 as against the
Company for a sum ofRs.7.63 crores with interest at the rate of
8% in favour of the petitioner along with costs and expenses. In
the meantime, the petitioner has flied the present Contempt Petition.
Later, a proposal for settlement was made by Respondent No.1
C before this Court relying on or on the basis of the said
representation, a Division Bench of this Court formed an opinion
that it is possible to settle the dues of the petitioner as also other
creditors. By its order dated 9.02.2007, this Court directed that in
terms of the proposal, the parties should find out ways and means
D to sell the property belonging to the first respondent company to
settle the dues and also directed the High Court to dispose of the
Writ petition on the said issue pending before it. The writ petition
having been dismissed by the High Court, the appeal of the
respondents and the Company preferred thereagainst was also
taken up for hearing along with the Contempt Petition.
E
Petitioner contended that by brazenly flouting the order of this
Court dated 6.09.2002, the respondents have committed gross
contempt of this Court; that the alleged contemnors were bound to
comply with the orders passed by the Arbitrator in terms of this
p Court's order dated 6.09.2002. As they had not furnished bank
guarantee pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof and in fact the
alleged contemn ors have committed a contempt of this Court; and
that that the contempt stands aggravated as even during pend ency
of this proceeding as also the arbitration proceeding before the
G Arbitrator, they have sold their flat situate at Bangalore.
On behalf ofrespondent-contemnors it was submitted thatvide
additional affidavits filed by the alleged contemnors, unconditional
apology has been tendered; that another affidavit filed by
Respondent No. 3 stating that he had tendered his resignation as
H
-~
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDER C. MEHTA 935

Director in 1997 and the Company has accepted the same; that in A
another counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 stating that he
was not a signatory to the original dealership agreement and was
not involved in any of the day to day affairs of the Company; that in
counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, he had tendered
unconditional apology for his inability to raise the resources and B
furnish a bank guarantee in terms of the order of this Court; that
Respondent No. 2 was forced to sell his personal flat at Bangalore
to meet his debts and obligations and he was ready and willing to
' relinquish all rights with the respect to the other property situated
at Secunderabad; and that as the Arbitrator has passed the award c
only against the Company, the interlocutory order passed by this
Court having merged with the final award, no contempt of this Court
has been committed.

Allowing the Contempt Petition, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. The fact that the Arbitrator issued such a direction
is not in dispute. The Arbitrator even otherwise had the jurisdiction
to pass interim order in terms of Section 9 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act. Correctness or otherwise of the said order has not
been questioned. Despite undertaking given before this Court, the E
alleged contemnors did not furnish any bank guarantee. Admittedly,
their application for modification was also dismissed. Not only, they
went back from the undertaking given before this Court, they also
r, sold away the only property which was in their possession. The
property situate at Secunderabad admittedly had been claimed by F
the State of Andhra Pradesh. The alleged contemnors even did not
disclose that the said property was an encumbered one. The same
was disclosed only at a later stage. [Para 21] [946-F-H; 947-A]

1.2. If respondents were not in a position to furnish any bank
.__, guarantee or otherwise, they could have taken such an unequivocal G
stand before the Courts. They not only suppressed material facts,
but also made a wrong representation that in the event the property
at Secunderabad is sold, the price whereof is about 11 crores and,
thus, from the sale proceeds the dues of the debtors would be
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R~ -

A satisfied. Such a claim was evidently made, as would now appear,
that an application for regularization was pending before the State.
The alleged contemnors did not have any subsisting right, title and
interest in or over the said property. They could not have made a
proposal before this Court for sale of the property only on the basis
B of a title which they could only derive on happening of a contingency,
viz., regularization thereof by the State. A proposal for sale of the
property could be made only if the respondents had any subsisting
title thereto and not otherwise. Hence, the alleged contemn ors have
misled this Court and have committed gross contempt of this Court.
C [Paras 22 and 23) [947-A-D]
Bank ofBaroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Anr., [2004] 1
SCC 360 and Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, [1980] 3 SCC
47; R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors.,
[2000] 4 SCC 400 and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and
D Anr., [2006) 11sec114, distinguished. •

2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case and the conduct of the alleged contemnors, this Court is of the
opinion that they have committed contempt of this Court. It is
E eminently a fit case where jurisdiction of this Court under Article
129 of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 should be invoked. However, the fact
that the alleged contemn or No. 3 has resigned, being not in dispute,
no action is being taken against him. So far as, the alleged contemnor
p No.1 is concerned, he being the Managing Director of the Company,
is liable to be punished. He is sentenced to undergo six months
imprisonment. The alleged contemnor No. 2 is also held guilty but
as he was not the Managing Director, sentencing him three months
imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice.
G [Paras 28 and 29] [950-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
No. 289 of 2003.
IN
H Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13305 of 2002.
\_

MARUTIUDYOGLIMITEDv. MAHINDERC. MEHTA 937
[SINHA,J.]
[Under Article 129 of the Constitution oflndia] A
Shyam Divan, T.K. Ganju, T. Sudhakar Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Nupur (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) Pramod Dayal,
A.K. Thakur and Nikunj Dayal for the Appellant.
Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kumar Singh, B
Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, Raghenth Basant, Balaji and Asheesh Jain for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This contempt petition arises in a somewhat C
peculiar circumstance. Petitioner herein is manufacturer of cars. Alleged
contemnors were Directors of a Company known as Mis. Mahalaxmi
Motors Limited (Company). The Company obtained various advances
from the customers on behalf of the petitioner. It, however, did not pay
the amount to petitioner herein. Respondents admitted their liability of the D
petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7.63 crores in respect of supply of vehicles
made by it, as would appear from the minutes of the meeting dated
5.04.1997 which is as under:
"7. MML also provided a letter No. 021/MML/97 dated 5.4.1997
wherein they admitted that there was a shortfall of Rs. 7.63 Cr." E
Respondents also by an affidavit filed before the Andhra Pradesh
High Court admitted their liability stating:
"15. In this instance also the Petitioner company had on its own
given the particulars of the amounts due from it to the complainant F
company by its letter dated 5th April, 1997 wherein it accepted a
liability of Rs. 763.22 lakhs and also gave the repayment schedule.
Prior to that it gave a list of all the pending customers at Hybderabad
and Vijayawada. In fact vehicles have been delivered to meet of
these in the said list, and deliveries are still on to the remaining G
persons. The complainant company had been delivering these
vehicles through other dealers as with the advent of this dispute with
the Petitioner company it terminated its dealership.·
16. It is respectfully submitted that after the Petitioner company H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.
rt',
A gave the said undertaking to pay off the due about Rs. 763.22
lakhs, there has been a change in thinking in the concerned officials
of the complainant company had they started making exaggerated
claims over and above the amounts actually due to it from customer
bookings. As far as the Petitioner company is concerned it also
B made funds available to honour its commitment to the complainant
company and took a draft for the said amount in May 1997 itself
which is to the knowledge of the complainant company."
2. As the Company or its Directors did not pay even the said ·-1
admitted amount to the petitioner, it filed a suit for recovery thereof.
C Indisputably, there existed an arbitration agreement in the contract entered
into by and between the parties, Clause 57 whereof reads as under:
"If the differences or disputes, except dispute pertaining to
termination, shall arise between the parties hereto as to the
D construction or true intent and meaning of any of the terms and
conditions herein contained or as to any payment to be made in
pursuance hereof or as to any other matter arising out of or
+
connected with or/ incidental to these presents or as to the rights,
duties and obligation of either party, such difference or dispute
E whenever and so often as the same shall arise, shall be referred to
the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi under their rules for
the time being in force and the award in pursuance thereof shall
be binding on the parties."
3. Relying on or on the basis of the said arbitration agreement, the J,
F respondents herein filed an application purported to be under Section 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"). A
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the said application.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before a Division Bench which was
also dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court.
G Petitioner herein agreed for reference of the disputes and differences
between the parties to arbitration inter alia on the condition that the
respondents shall depositthe amount or furnish security and/ or comply
with the directions of the learned Arbitrator in case such directions and/
or interim orders are passed by the learned Arbitrator in the following
H terms:
MARUTIUDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDERC. MEHTA 939
[SINHA,J.]

i "4. All the parties to this S.L.P. shall by way of affidavit give A
undertaking to this Hon'ble Court to furnish the security and/ or
comply with the directions ofleamed Arbitrator in case the learned
Arbitrator directs any of the parties to furnish the security and/ or
. comply with any other interim order of the learned Arbitrator."
B
The proposed term of reference was also agreed to by the
respondents.
't' 4. On the basis of the said representations, this Court by an order
dated 6.09.2002 referred the subject matter of the dispute to the
arbitration of Justice A.M. Ahmadi, a former Chief Justice of this Court. c
5. The question as to whether the respondents should furnish bank
guarantee or not came up for consideration before the learned Arbitrator
and by an order dated 25.03.2003 a direction was issued upon the
respondents to furnish bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 763 .22 lakhs D
within a period of four weeks from the said date directing:
"Since the documents relied upon by the claimant company in
support ofits claim for Rs. 763.22 lakhs are in dispute, I am not
inclined to make an interim award under section 17 of the Act
read with Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. However, I am prima facie E
satisfied that the claimant company has made out a prima facie
case for an interim order directing the respondents to furnish a bank
guarantee in the sum of Rs. 763.22 lakhs within a period of four
.~ weeks from today. Needless to state that under the Supreme Court
order dated 6.9.2002 (paragraph 3) the interim order has to be F
complied with within four weeks from the date of the order."
6. An interlocutory application was filed by the respondents before
this Court being IA No. 2 of2003. But, the same was withdrawn on
6.05.2003. An application was thereafter filed by them before the learned
't Arbitrator for modification of the said order dated 25.03.2003 by offering G
to furnish property security purported to have been situate at
Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh instead of bank guarantee.
Curiously enough, it was not disclosed that the said property was
encumbered in more than one way and, as would appear from the
H
\

940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. ~
A discussions made hereinafter, the property was being claimed by the State
of Andhra Pradesh as having vested in it. However, on or about
28.06.2003, it was disclosed that the property was encumbered. The
learned Arbitrator rejected the application for modification by an order
dated 2.08.2003 but extended time for furnishing bank guarantee upto
B 27.08.2003. In the meantime, the petitioner fiied a contempt petition before
this Court on 26.07.2003.
7. It appears from the records that the respondents herein had given
an undertaking not to alienate their assets or encumber or create third ·1
party interest in the property at Secunderabad. It is also not in dispute
C that despite pendency of the aforementioned contempt petition, the
property belonging to company at Bangalore was disposed of. It was
disclosed before the learned Arbitrator by the respondents in their reply
to application under Section 17 of the Act filed by the petitioner and the
same was reiterated in the affidavit affirmed by Respondent No. 1 herein
D. on 7.07.2004.
8. On or about 23.07.2004, this Court directed the alleged
contemnors to file affidavit disclosing details of their present assets as also
that of the Company; pursuant whereto, an affidavit was filed by
E Respondent No. 1 stating:
(i) The property of M/s. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. at
Secunderabad was encumbered.
(ii) He had a flat at D-1, Maya Apartment admeasuring 800 sq.
ft. at Ashoka Road, Bangalore which was sold on 3.02.2004 )
F for Rs. 8,00;700/-.
(rii) He was the manager of Hyderabad Auto Services and drawing
a salary of Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
Petitioner in its reply denied and disputed the said statement and
G contended that by reason of sale of property at Bangalore, a further v
I
contempt has been committed. It was urged that the affidavit of
Respondent No. 1 not only amounted to suppression of facts but also
perjury.
H An award was made on 10.04.2005 as against the Company for a
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDER C. MEHTA 941
[SINHA,J.]

sum of Rs. 7.63 crores with interest at the rate of 8% in favour of the A
petitioner along with costs and expenses.
9. Before this Court, however, a proposal for settlement was made
by Respondent No. I in terms of an affidavit; paragraph 13 whereof reads
thus: B
"13. I say that I pray this Hon'ble Court to kindly consider my
pecuniary circumstances and helpless position to mobilize monies
~· to an extent of763.22 lakhs and I pray which inability of mere
may not be termed as contempt of this Hon'ble Court. I once again
reiterate and pray this Hon'ble Court to kindly consider my adverse c
financial circumstances and kindly accept the landed property as
security which the Petitioner has accepted and consequently the
orders passed by the Arbitrator was complied with and thus there
is no cause of action to proceed with the present contempt case.
Even otherwise I have also established a prima facie case over the D
title of the said land before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
before the Sole Arbitrator and before this Hon 'ble Court. I am
even now ready and willing to relinquish all my rights over the
landed property in favour of the Petitioner. I further agree that I
will execute the General Power of Attorney in favour of the E
petitioner for the purpose of getting clearance from the Government
of Andhra Pradesh and regularization of the land in question in
favour of the Mahalaxmi Motors .. .I will fully cooperate with the
Petitioner to get the land transferred in its name or for its disposal
and the Respondent unhestitatingly sign on every paper which the p
petitioner brings before him in the matter of the said landed
,,
property ...

I0. Relying on or on the basis of the said representation made by
the respondents, a Division Bench formed an impression that it is possible
'1 to settle the dues of the petitioner as also other creditors. By an order G
dated 9.02.2007, therefore, it was directed:
"(1) The parties hereto should find out ways and means to sell the
property belonging to the first respondent company herein, situate
at Secunderabad, jointly by the petitioner as also the Indian H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Overseas Bank, Hyderabad. For the said purpose, the Chief
Manager of the Indian -Overseas Bank, the Collector of the
Hyderabad District as also the Managing Director of respondent
No. 1 Mahendra C. Mehta, who is present in Court today, shall
meet in the office of the Collector, Hyderabad on 26th February,
B 2007 at 11.00 a.m.
(2) As it is stated that a writ petition bearing No. 15920/2004 is
pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in regard to the
said property, we request the Chief Justice of the High court to
consider the desirability of placing the said writ petition before an
c appropriate Bench for its very early disposal."
11. In furtherance of the said order, the Collector of the Hyderabad
District held a meeting. In the said meeting, it transpired that the property
in question, which is in dispute, belonged to the State of Andhra Pradesh
D and it claiming right, title and interest therein had initiated a proceeding
against th~ respondents in respect thereof under the provisions of the +
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The said
proceeding was decided in favour of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
12. Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court
E thereagainst being Writ Petition No. 15920 of2004. The said writ petition
having been dismissed, the appeal of the respondents and the Company
preferred thereagainst was taken up for hearing along with this matter and
by reason of a judgment and order of this date, we are disposing of the
same also. )
F
13. The Collector filed a status report inter alia noticing:
"10. It may be informed to this Hon'ble Court that on detailed
enquiry by the revenue officials it is learnt that one Sri R. Praveen
Kumar, S/o R. Vijay Kumar, claiming to be GPA holder (Un-
G registered) of Mis Mahalakshmi Motors Ltd. is reportedly running
Mahalaxmi Motors workshop on the suit schedule land but on
. ground a company under the name and style of Mis Hyundai
Lakshmi is being run, involving business of buying, selling and
servicing of vehicles. Further, there are two prominent display
H boards at the entrance showing as "Hyundai Lakshmi". The copy
1 MARUTIUDYOG LIMITEDv. MAHINDERC. MEHTA
[SINHA,J.]
943

of the GPA furnished by Sri Praveen Kumar, is not registered and A
has no legal authenticity. This office has reason to believe that a
third party is in illegal possession of the land and the relationship
between Mis Mahalaxmi Motors and present occupant is not
known. In this regard, necessary action is being initiated
separately ... " B

It was, therefore, opined:
I) "11. The very fact that Mis Mahalaxmi Motors have applied for
regularization proves that they are in illegal occupation of
Government land. Thus, they do not ha·1e any locus standi over c
the suit scheduled property. Further the intention of selling of the
land as proposed by the Indian Overseas Bank and Maruti Udyog
Ltd. cannot be considered at this juncture as the suit property does
not belong to Mahendra C. Mehta and others and the suit
scheduled land is required for public purpose." D
+
14. Mr. T.K. Ganju, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner would submit that by brazenly flouting the order of this Court
dated 6.09.2002, the respondents have committed gross contempt ofthis
Court. It was submitted that the alleged contemnors were bound to comply
with the orders passed by the learned Arbitrator in terms of this Court's E
order dated 6.09.2002. as they had not furnished bank guarantee pursuant
thereto or in furtherance thereof and in fact the alleged contemnors have
committed a contempt of this Court.
~
It was furthermore contended that that the contempt stands F
aggravated as even during pendency of this proceeding as also the
arbitration proceeding before the learned Arbitrator, they have sold their
flat situate at Bangalore.
15. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
f of the alleged contemnors, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to G
the additional affidavits filed by the contemnors herein tendering
unconditional apology. We would refer to only one of them filed by
Respondent No. 1. It was averred therein:
"l. I unconditionally apologize to this Hon'ble Court with respect H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A to the contempt which is the subject matter of the Contempt
Petition. I have highest respect for the judiciary and for the judges
of this Hon'ble Court as well as the Ld. Arbitrator.
2. I was unable to arrange for Bank Guarantee of Rs. 763.22 lakhs
since the ,company was not in a position to mobilize resources.
B
Moreover, I did not have personal resources to raise funds and to
ensure that the Bank Guarantee is provided.
3. I request this Hon'ble Court to accept the unconditional apology "1'
tendered by me."
c A further reply has also been filed by the respondents stating:
"6. That the District Collector has needlessly and unwarrantly
traced earlier rejection of the regularization proposals by the
government by cryptic and non-speaking order and consequent
D filing of writ petition No. 15 of 2000 by the respondent when the
matter was remitted back to government to pass appropriate orders
taking into account the recommendations of the District Collector
and the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 22.1ff1997 and
30.9.1997 which facts are already in the record of this Honourable
E Court. While so doing, the District Collector, Hyderabad made a
false report that a report was submitted to the government that the
lands are required for public purpose like establishment of
hospitals, schools, play grounds, etc., referring to his report dated
17 .6.2003 and his report is not based on the recommendations
based by him and the Commissioner Land Revenue referred to
F
above which is definitely an after thought and to prejudice the mind
of this Honourable Court. Further it is not a relevant issue at this
juncture which he never pleaded before any of the courts below.
7. The Respondent submits that the Collector, Hyderabad
G deliberately, wantonly and maliciously sent a misleading report to
t'
this Hon'ble Court. When the District Collector himself
recommended for the regularization of the lands in question in
favour of the Respondent collecting market rate at Rs. 1240/-per
sq. yard in his letter No. 14-87-89/1993 dated 22.10.1994, the
H District Collector suppressed this letter and quoted a different one.
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDER C. MEHTA 945
[SINHA,J.]
In fact the Hon'ble High Court directed the Govenunent to take A
into consideration the same letter dated 22.10.1994 in its order
dated 30.7.2001 in W.P. No. 15/2000. the District Collector,
Hyderabad deliberately suppressed the said letter and gave a false
and misleading report to this Hon'ble Court and this is highly
reprehensible." B
In regard to possession of the property by Mis. Lakshmi Hyundai,
.,.. it was stated:
"11. The Respondent submits that it is not true to say that the land
in question is under illegal occupation of third party Sri R. Praveen C
Kumar S/o Vijaya Kumar Rao as reported by the District
Collector, Hyderabad. The fact remained is that the Managing
Direcotr of Mis Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd., and Lakshmi Hyundai
had association with each other. Mis. Lakshmi Hyundai has its own
showroom and workshop at Humayathnagar, Hyderabad. That D
company has some customers in the Secunderabad area and for
the convenience of its customers the Managing Director of Mis.
Hyundai Lakshmi sought the oral permission of the Managing
Director of Mis. Mahalaxmi Motors to carry on servicing of the
cars ofits customers in the workshop ofMahalaxmi Motors Ltd. E
Except this there is no jural relationship between Mis. Mahalaxmi
Motors Ltd., and Hyundai Lakshmi Motors. The latter hac; no right,
claim, title or interest over the workshop of Mis. Mahalaxmi
Motors Ltd., and no financial transaction took place between these
two companies. Mis. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. ever executed any F
GP A either registered or unregistered in favour of anybody
muchless in favour of R. Praveen Kumar S/o Vijaya Kumar Rao."

16. Our attention was drawn to an affidavit affirmed by the alleged
Contemnor No. 3 wherein he stated that he was only an employee of the
·f Company and he was made Director of the Company only because of G
his experience in the sale and service of automobiles. He has allegedly
tendered his resignation as Director .in 1997 and the Company has
accepted the same.
17. Our attention was further drawn to a counter affidavit dated
~/
',
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 6.04.2004 filed by Respondent No. 2 wherein it was stated that he wa5
not a signatory to the original dealership agreement and was not involved
in any of the day to day affairs of Mahalxmi Motors Ltd.

18. Our attention was also drawn to a counter affidavit dated
B 16.2.2004, and fl,lrther affidavits dated 1.08.2004, 5.08.2005 and
4.10.2005 wherein, as noticed hereinbefore, Respondent No. 1 had
tendered unconditional apology for his inability to raise the resources and
furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 763.22 lakhs .. Respondent
No. 2 had also stated that he was forced to sell his personal flat at
c Bangalore to meet his debts and obligations and he was ready and willing
to relinquish all rights with the respect to the land in Secunderabad.

19. It was furthermore submitted that as the learned Arbitrator has
passed an award only against the Company, the interlocutory order passed
by this Court having merged with the final award, no contempt of this
D Court has been committed.

20. The fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly goes to
+
show that the alleged contemnors not only prevaricated their stand at
different stages in different proceedings, they intended to prolong the
E litigation one way or the other. They had accepted their liability at !east
to the extent of 7.63 crores. They must have invested the said amount.
The parties hereto accepted that the disputes and differences pending
between them should be referred to an arbitrator. It was agreed to by
the petitioner only on the representation made by the alleged contemnors
F that they would furnish a bank guarantee provided an order is passed in
that behalf by the learned Arbitrator.

21. The fact that the learned Arbitrator issued such a direction is
not in dispute. The learned Arbitrator even otherwise had the jurisdiction
G to pass interim order in tenns of Section 9 of the Act. Correctness or
otherwise of the said order has not been questioned. Despite undertaking
given before this Court, in the aforesaid matter, the alleged contemnors
did not furnish any bank guarantee. Admittedly, their application for
modification was also dismissed. Not only, they went back from the
H l.111dertaking given before this Court, they also sold away the only property
which was in their possession. The property situate at Secunderabad
~
I
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDER C. MEHTA 94 7
[SINHA, J.]
admittedly had been claimed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The alleged A
contemnors even did not disclose that the said property was an
encumbered one. The same was disclosed only at a later stage.
22. If they were not in a position to furnish any bank guarantee or
otherwise, they could have taken such an unequivocal stand before the
courts. They not only suppressed material facts, but also made a wrong B
representation that in the event the property at Secunderabad is sold, the
price whereof is about 11 crores and, thus, from the sale proceeds the
·r dues of the debtors would be satisfied. Such a claim was evidently made,
as would now appear, that an application for regularization was pending
before the State. The alleged contemnors did not have any subsisting right, c
title and interest in or over the said property. They could not have made
a proposal before this Court for sale of the property only on the basis of
a title which they could only derive on happening of a contingency, viz.,
regularization thereof by the State. A proposal for sale of the property
could be made only if the respondents had any subsisting title thereto and D
not otherwise.
23. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the alleged contemnors
have misled this Court and have committed gross contempt of this Court.
24. In Bank ofBaroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Anr., [2004] E
1 SCC 360, even in relation to a consent order, this Court held:
"10. A legal plea taken by a party that a decree passed by a court
(including Supreme Court) is without jurisdiction and therefore a
nullity, will not normally amount to a contemptuous statement.
F
However, the written submission made by the respondents before
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, wherein they said that the Supreme
Comt had no jurisdiction to pass the decree dated 28-7-1999 and
the decree had no validity and is a nullity, has to be seen in the
factual background of the case. It may be noted that the decree
, G
-:J had been passed on the basis of consent terms. It is not the case
of the respondents that any fraud was played upon them by any
party when they entered into a settlement and signed the minutes
of the decree. It appears that the respondents from the very
inception had no intention of paying the amount, but they agreed
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
/'(
948 [2007] 10 S.C.R. "

A for a settlement and consent terms only for the purpose of gaining
time whereunder instalments were fixed. They adopted the same
procedure in the suit instituted by Oman International Bank,
SAOD, wherein they offered the same property to remain under
attachment till the decree was satisfied. Placing the same property
B under attachment is bound to create problems for the decree-
holders of either of the suits as no one wants to buy such property
in court auction which may land him in further litigation. The
respondents intentionally and deliberately adopted such a course
of action so that further hurdles may come in the way of execution
c of the decree and therefore it is clearly a case of wilful breach of
an undertaking given to the Court."
25. This Court in Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, [1980] 3
sec 47 held:
D "IO .. .Indeed, if we were to hold that non-compliance of a
compromise decree or consent order amounts to contempt of
court, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to
execution of decrees may not be resorted to at all. In fact, the
reason why a breach of clear undertaking given to the court
E amounts to contempt of court is that the contemner by making a .
false representation to the court obtains a benefit for himself and if
he fails to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the
court itself and thereby obstructs the course of justice and brings
into disrepute the judicial institution. The same cannot, however, ;i
be said of a consent order or a compromise decree where the
F
fraud, if any, is practisoo by the person concerned not on the court
but on one of the parties. Thus, the offence committed by the
person concerned is qua the party not qua the court, and, therefore,
the very foundation for proceeding for contempt of court is
completely absent in such cases. In these circumstances, we are
G
satisfied that unless there is an express undertaking given in writing r
before the Court by the contemner or incorporated by the court
in its order, there can be no question of wilful disobedience of such
an undertaking. In the instant case, we have already held that there
is neither any written undertaking filed by the appellant nor was
H
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. MAHINDER C. MEHTA 949
[SINHA, J.]

i any such undertaking impliedly or expressly incorporated in the A
order impugned. Thus there being no undertaking at all the question
of breach of such undertaking does not arise."
26. Mr. Divan, however, relied upon a decision of this Court in R.N
Dey and Ors. V. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors., [2000] 4 sec 400
B
wherein it has been held:
"7. We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be
l' used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for
execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which
alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the c
court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and
majesty oflaw. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist
that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is
between a conternner and the court ... "
This Court in R.N Dey (supra) has categorically held that the D
contempt is a matter between the court and the conternnor. Unlike R.N
Dey (supra), here in the respondents are not disputing their liability to pay
the awarded amount. Therein no undertaking had been given.
27. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Anr., [2006] 11 SCC E
114 whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Divan, the question
revolved round the alleged violation of certain clauses of the consent terms.
)..,
In that case the consent order did not contain an undertaking. It, on that
premise, opined:
""'
"24. All decrees and orders are executable under the Code of Civil F
Procedure. Consent decrees or orders are of course also
executable. But merely because an order or decree is executable,
would not take away the court's jurisdiction to deal with a matter
under the Act provided the court is satisfied that the violation of
--( the order or decree is such, that if proved, it would warrant G
punishment under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the
contempt substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere
with the due course of justice. The decisions relied upon by the
respondents themselves hold so as we shall subsequently see."
H
-~V\
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A This Court in Rama Narang (supra), thus, clearly laid down the ·r
proposition of law that when an undertaking has been recorded in
accordance with law, a contempt proceeding would be maintainable.
28. We, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and the conduct of the alleged conternnors,
B are of the opinion that they have committed contempt of this Court. We
are clearly of the opinion that it is eminently a fit case where jurisdiction
ofthis Court under Article 129 of the Constitution ofindia as also the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 should be invoked.
C 29. However, the fact that the alleged contemnor No. 3 has resigned,
being not in dispute, no action is being taken against him. So far as, the
alleged contemnor No. I is concerned, we are of the opinion that he being
the Managing Director of the Company, is liable to be punished. He is
sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. The alleged contemnor
D No. 2 is also held guilty but as he was not the Managing Director, we
are of the view that sentencing him three months imprisonment shall meet +
the ends of justice.
30. The contempt petition is allowed with the aforementioned
directions.
E
S.K.S. Contempt Petition allowed.

)-