Mizba Xec & Ors. vs Central Bank Of India & Ors.

This is an application praying for 15 days’ delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is living in Goa and due to health reason she was unable to seek timely legal advice and applicant could able to approach after a week or two and thereafter time was taken in obtaining legal advice and guidance. We find cause sufficient. Delay condoned.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 13.12.2024 by which contempt case no. 52/2024 filed by the applicant personal guarantor has been rejected. Section 95 proceedings were initiated against the personal guarantor the appellant by SREI Equipment Finance Limited dated 09.02.2022. In the said proceedings an IA No. 5688/2023 was filed by the appellant praying for interim relief in which IA Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on 19.12.2023 noticing the consent of the counsel for the bank that they have no objection if status quo is directed to be maintained only in respect to serial no.1 property. It is submitted that after the aforesaid interim order was passed the bank subsequently has already issued the sale certificate on 12.12.2023. Appellant thereafter filed the contempt application no. 52/2024 initiating contempt against the Chief Manager of Central Bank of India for violating the interim order dated 19.12.2023. The said application has been considered and rejected by Adjudicating Authority and Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the contempt application the cost of Rs.1 Lakh has been imposed on the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present was a case where the Central Bank itself has consented for status quo order of 19.12.2023 and stated that the sale is yet to be finalised whereas Sale Certificate was issued on 12.12.2023 itself. It is submitted that present was not a case of imposition of any cost or any observation against the counsel who appeared for the applicant.

We have considered the submissions of appellant and perused the records. According to submissions made by the appellant, applicant itself it is clear that sale certificate was issued on 12.12.2023 that is prior to interim order was passed which was brought subsequently before the Bench. The bank has also filed a reply to the IA which was filed by the appellant praying for interim relief in which order of 19.12.2023 was passed and reply to the contempt. Even in the Reply to the contempt application in which paragraph-13 following was pleaded by the bank:-

From the materials brought on record it appears that the property asset was in the name of SM Engineering Works- a partnership firm of which appellant was a partner. The bank has pleaded that the asset did not belong to the personal guarantor the appellant hence moratorium was not applicable.

Be as it may, in the facts of the present case, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not proceeding with contempt proceedings against the Central Bank of India. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in so far as contempt petition is rejected. However, in facts of the present case are of the view that ends of justice be served in deleting the cost imposed on the appellant as well as observations made against the counsel in the impugned order. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that our consideration and observations in this appeal is only with respect to the contempt application.