Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
M/S. PACKRAFT (INDIA) PVT.LTD. THROUGHITS DIRECTER V.S. MANN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D.R.M. SETHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 304 JT 1995 (8) 405
1995 SCALE (6)486
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, [(1993) 2 SCC
279] 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.
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.
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.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.