Contempt of Court – Held: Contemnor Nos. 9 and 10 were held guilty of committing contempt of the orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court – They were given an opportunity to purge themselves of contempt – However, the kind of assets offered by Contemnor Nos.9 and 10 in their affidavit are so inadequate that it is impossible to satisfy the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner in the foreign arbitral award – Thus, said Contemnors have failed to purge themselves of contempt – Considering the enormity of their actions, Contemnor Nos.9 and 10 sentenced to suffer the maximum sentence i.e., six months imprisonment – Fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed for having committed contempt of court with default sentence of two months – Further, regarding the role played by the noticee banks and financial institutions, no directions are being passed against them for the present but the executing court or any other authority competent to exercise such power shall do well to appoint forensic auditor(s) to undertake proper exercise to unravel the truth – Directions issued.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (2007) 15 SCC 60 I : [2005] 3 SCR 313; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of lndia (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; Satya Brata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar (1994) 2 SCC 266 : [1994] 1 SCR 413; Traders Private Ltd. v. Tosh apartments Private Ltd (2012) 8 SCC 384 : [2012] 10 SCR 307; Rosnan Sam Boyce v. B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd. (1990) 2 SCC 636 : [1990] 2 SCR 381 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.