Lata Rani And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

I.A. filed by the appellants for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent Bank was disposed of as closed vide order dated 30.4.2012 by the Tribunal below, finding that no ground to proceed against Mr. R.K. Juneja (respondent No. 4) was made out. This appeal is directed against the said order dated 30.4.2012. The facts, in brief, are that Punjab National Bank had filed OA No. 215/97 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,50,88,245/- with interest and cost. On 15.10.2010, a recovery certificate in the sum of Rs. 3,48,66,409/- with interest @ 10% p.a. along with cost was issued. During the proceedings, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below had appointed the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana for sale of hypothecated goods and mortgaged property. The Receiver, accordingly issued a public notice in 'Punjab Kesri' on 4.11.2004 inviting tenders for the sale of land measuring 4 Kanals out of total land measuring 12 Kanals belonging to defendant No. 1 - M/s. A.S. Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 78 lacs. 4 kanals of land was sold for Rs. 70.40 lacs against the reserve price of Rs. 78 lacs.

It is also alleged that the remaining 8 Kanals was sold by the Receiver under the Benami transactions and the Receiver has embezzled/misappropriated the said sale proceeds realized to his own use in connivance with other officials of the Bank and the auction purchaser. It is further alleged that the Receiver had sold the hypothecated goods worth Rs. 4 crore also and misappropriated/sold the items and embezzled/misappropriated the amount so received for his own use. This also he did in connivance with the officials of the Bank and the auction purchaser.

Having done so, Mr. R.K. Juneja, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank informed the Tribunal below on 19.9.2005 that the property was sold in auction on 6.8.2005 and the bid of Rs. 70.40 lacs was received from M/s. Vivek Industrial Corporation. It is averred that Mr. R.K. Juneja was neither the Receiver nor had any authority to move this application, but still the sale of the land measuring 12 Kanals was confirmed ignoring the vital fact that the proclamation of sale was only for 4 Kanals. As per the appellants, there was no person in whose name the sale was allegedly confirmed.

Noticing the above position, the defendants (including the present appellants) filed a review application pleading that the proclamation of sale was only for a land measuring 4 Kanals out of 12 Kanals but actually 12 Kanals of land was sold which amounted to a fraud on the Tribunal. This review application was allowed and the judgment passed in the O.A. was recalled. The Bank was also directed to submit explanation in this regard.

Aggrieved against the above order passed by the Tribunal below, Punjab National Bank filed an appeal before this Tribunal. While dismissing the said appeal, this Tribunal had made some observations, relevant portion of which is as under:

"7. ... Prima facie it appears that the persons detailed above have committed contempt of Court. It appears that there is enough force in the allegations of fraud committed by the Bank. The questions raised in the impugned order cannot be dismissed out of hand. The problem has to be investigated and discussed down to the ground. It is duty of the Court to reckon with reality. The Court has to be empirical and practical in confronting reality. The Court cannot afford to wink at or to be blind at such a serious offence. The amenability of the concerned person and its consequences are yet to be found out. It would be too early to speak one's piece on this knotty matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.5.2011. Since the issue involved is of a serious nature, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the case. The Bank is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned trial Court by 25.5.2011 by producing the above said persons."

As a follow up action due to above noted observation made by this Tribunal, the appellants had filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against Chief Manager (Receiver), Mr. B.R. Allagh - Ex. AGM and Mr. R.K. Juneja - Chief Manager. The Tribunal had issued notice on the said application. Mr. Joseph Gomes, Chief Manager of the Bank, filed an affidavit in reply disclosing that unfortunately Mr. B.R. Allagh and Mr. Anil Sama had died on 17.8.2010 and 9.6.2007 respectively and the contempt, if any, was allegedly committed by the said persons. So far as the role of Mr. R.K. Juneja was concerned, he had only filed report regarding the sale. Plea was that this in itself was not contemptuous act in any manner. Prayer thus was made to drop the contempt proceedings.

While disposing of this application, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that though initially the proclamation of sale was for 4 Kanals only, on the basis of which allegations were made for selling the remaining 8 Kanals by way of Benami sale, but this was due to an innocuous error which had taken place in the sale notice. The documents had been placed on the record to show that the Receiver had immediately published a corrigendum stating that the area of immovable property be read as 12 Kanals instead of 4 Kanals. The Bank/had also produced the notification published on 28.7.2005 where the area of land was shown as 12 Kanals. On this basis, the Tribunal found that there was no ground for proceeding against Mr. R.K. Juneja. The Tribunal also observed that other persons named were already dead. They were also not found to be involved in any malicious activity for which any stigma could be cast against them. The I.A. was disposed of as closed. The appellants have accordingly filed the present appeal to challenge the order so passed by the Tribunal below.

The Counsel for the appellants has pressed his plea rather hard to urge that a clear-cut case of contempt was made out and accordingly the Tribunal below was misconceived in closing the I.A., without direction for initiating appropriate contempt proceedings in this case. The Counsel would also contend that the observations made by this Tribunal, which are reproduced above, have been completely ignored by the Tribunal below while passing the impugned order. Counsel would accordingly pray that the direction be issued by this Tribunal for carrying out investigation into the allegations made.

I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellants. No doubt, this Tribunal had made certain observations that the persons detailed therein had committed contempt of Court, but that view of this Tribunal was prima facie. On the basis of the application moved, the Tribunal below has considered the issue and has found that there was no such role played by Mr. R.K. Juneja which could warrant any initiation of contempt proceedings against him. He had simply informed the Tribunal below about the sale. The contempt is committed by an individual and since the two persons said to be responsible, if at all, were no more, no contempt proceedings against them obviously could have been initiated or continued in any manner. So far as the allegation of fraud is concerned, it may be observed that the offence of fraud, if any, are not seem to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court or Tribunal or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence, in a proceeding before the Court. Therefore, no occasion would arise for the Tribunal below to initiate action for holding investigation into the case of any fraud, if any, committed. If the appellants otherwise feel that any fraud was/committed in this case, it is for them to consider and take action to set the criminal law in motion in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. For this purpose, no direction from this Tribunal would be needed. In view of above, no direction pursuant to the observations made by the Tribunal are called for. It is left open to the appellants, if they so wish to initiate any proceeding, be it a criminal proceeding or otherwise, they may do so in accordance with law. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.