AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Hari Shankar, J
CCP(O) 58/2024
Mr. Kamlesh Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having committed disobedience of orders dated 12 December 2023 read with order dated 6 December 2023 passed by this Court.
The orders dated 6 December 2023 and 12 December 2023 read thus:
Order dated 6 December 2023
“O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023
The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act with the following prayers:
“a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
for interim measures of protection in respect to the Recovery against Warranty Rejection Advice dated 06th of September 2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 until the finalization of lis.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further execution, implementation and enforcement of Recovery against Warranty Rejection Advice dated 06th of September 2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
Issue notice. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned central government standing counsel for UOI has accepted the notice. Learned counsel submits that the material supplied was of sub-standard quality and therefore the same were rejected and the petitioner was asked to replace the same. However, the petitioner failed to replace the same within 60 days and therefore the recovery of Rs.3,30,49,000/- has been raised against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspection process was wrong. Learned counsel also submits that there is a due amount of around Rs.15 crores against the respondent and the respondent may make the balance payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, the respondent may release the pending amount after deducting the amount on account of rejection of the material.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to take instructions.
List on 12.12.2023.”
Order dated 12 December 2023
“O.M.P(I) (COMM) 394/2023
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.
Let the reply be filed within 30 days. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within 30 days thereafter.
List on 22.02.2024.
In the meantime, in terms of the order dated 06.12.2023, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner may not be affected.”
Though the order dated 12 December 2023 restrains the respondent from taking any recovery proceedings against the petitioner in terms of order dated 6 December 2023, there is no reference in the order dated 6 December 2023 to recovery proceedings.
Nonetheless, even if one proceeds on the basis of the order dated 12 December 2023, it is not the petitioner’s case that any recovery proceedings have been initiated against it.
Mr. Ojha has referred to notice dated 27 May 2024 issued by the respondent to the petitioner, temporarily de-listing it. This, according to him, constitutes contempt of the order dated 12 December 2023.
I cannot agree.
The restraint against the respondent was from taking recovery proceedings against the petitioner. There is no restraint against de-listing. Irrespective of whether the de-listing of the petitioner was or was not legal and proper, it cannot be treated as contemptuous of the order dated 12 December 2023.
As such, the contempt petition is dismissed.