(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience in not complying with the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.28319 of 2013.)1. The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order dated 02.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.28319 of 2013.2. This Court passed an order dated 02.11.2018, as under:“8. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:(i) The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.2847/D4/2013, dated 04.10.2013 is quashed.(ii) The writ petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and submit an application for rehabilitation to the competent authorities, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iii) On receipt of such payment and application, the authorities competent are directed to consider the application submitted by the writ petitioner favourably for extending the scheme of rehabilitation of sick units to the writ petitioner also, within a period of four weeks from the date of deposit of the said amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.”3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above order and submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- along with an application for rehabilitation to the authorities. However, even after the payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, the application submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present contempt petition.4. After notice, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is present and made a submission that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the proposal submitted by the petitioner is unacceptable, as the proposal is involved to a sum of Rs.22.5 crores, such a proposal cannot be considered as rehabilitation and he submit a proposal for a new project by paying Rs.25,00,000/- to the Bank. The petitioner cannot submit a fresh proposal for a huge sum, since it requires separate scrutiny and verification as per the Bank regulations. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made a submission that the Bank cannot approve the proposal as it is in the name of rehabilitation and therefore, they are prepared to return back the amount to the payee and proceed with the action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 16.03.2020.5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent handed over a Demand Draft No.551948, dated 11.03.2020 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Velanganni in the name of the petitioner R.Manichandran for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.6. In view of the fact that the respondent Bank is not having the correct address of the petitioner, the said Demand Draft is now handed over to the learned counsel, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who in turn made a submission that he will hand over the said Demand Draft to the petitioner in person. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Kesavaraja, acknowledged the receipt of the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, drawn in favour of the contempt petitioner.7. As far as the reconsideration of the proposal is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the difficulties now raised by the 2nd respondent was not placed before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition. When the petitioner made a submission that he will deposit Rs.25,00,000/- and his proposal is to be reconsidered, this Court passed the said order. Now, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made a submission that it is not the proposal for rehabilitation, however, it is only a proposal for fresh consideration of a sum of Rs.22.59 crores, which cannot be dealt under the procedures to be followed for rehabilitation.8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent Bank has to follow the procedures with reference to the scheme f
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ormulated either by the Bank or by the Government in this regard. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not committed any contempt willfully and wantonly and the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- already paid by the contempt petitioner also returned back to him. Under these circumstances, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with in accordance with law.9. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.