Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1995) 11 SC CK 0089

Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann vs U.P.F.C. through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 13 November 1995 · Citation: (1997) 89 CompCas 269 : (1995) 8 JT 405 : (1995) 6 SCALE 486 : (1996) 1 SCC 304 : (1995) 5 SCR 179 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · B. L. Hansaria, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 217 words
1.

This Court in Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.

2.

The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.

3.

Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.

4.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.