w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sri Sai Krishna Constructions v/s Glove Infracom & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45201DL1996PLC080401

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45201KA2005PLC037848

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2005PLC037848

Company & Directors' Information:- C P R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057937

Company & Directors' Information:- S T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC127181

Company & Directors' Information:- J P G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC124763

Company & Directors' Information:- B O CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2000PTC103440

Company & Directors' Information:- V R G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208TN2013PTC090378

Company & Directors' Information:- I P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC141372

Company & Directors' Information:- D N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2011PTC074563

Company & Directors' Information:- D A P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1997PTC086056

Company & Directors' Information:- M R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1987PTC041958

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120KA1989FLC010358

Company & Directors' Information:- J N C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC093071

Company & Directors' Information:- S V P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15100KA2013PTC072347

Company & Directors' Information:- V G V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2003PTC010825

Company & Directors' Information:- C L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074067

Company & Directors' Information:- R M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC136640

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH1988PTC049738

Company & Directors' Information:- H M R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209WB1944PTC011901

Company & Directors' Information:- N B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC153179

Company & Directors' Information:- V P V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TZ2002PTC010021

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1990PTC048623

Company & Directors' Information:- D B S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201BR1990PTC003954

Company & Directors' Information:- P R P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1995PTC032833

Company & Directors' Information:- N S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1997PLC088867

Company & Directors' Information:- B B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1988PLC045084

Company & Directors' Information:- K & R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2011PTC010822

Company & Directors' Information:- G V B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC028935

Company & Directors' Information:- H K P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202OR2001PTC006458

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130723

Company & Directors' Information:- A G P CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AN2006PTC000078

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1993PTC061189

Company & Directors' Information:- P H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125388

Company & Directors' Information:- S M C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2000PTC123619

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MP2002PTC015264

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PN2020PTC191603

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24248UP1984PTC006613

Company & Directors' Information:- H V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2008PTC183930

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26931TG1983PTC004119

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TG2000PTC035352

Company & Directors' Information:- A G M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202KL2002PTC015340

Company & Directors' Information:- A N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC035171

Company & Directors' Information:- D N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203AS1983PTC002024

Company & Directors' Information:- P S V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC064768

Company & Directors' Information:- K B C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2011PLC032890

Company & Directors' Information:- V B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC027406

Company & Directors' Information:- M R Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC172953

Company & Directors' Information:- V S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA1980PTC003939

Company & Directors' Information:- J B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1981PLC034263

Company & Directors' Information:- R S INFRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC088730

Company & Directors' Information:- S D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC012083

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC281859

Company & Directors' Information:- V N CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2015PTC083425

Company & Directors' Information:- R D S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PN2001PTC016041

Company & Directors' Information:- T R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC161605

Company & Directors' Information:- J B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130303

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2006PTC040025

Company & Directors' Information:- A I B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309KA2021PTC146378

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND V CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65992TG1987PTC007890

Company & Directors' Information:- P D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100KA1986PTC007383

Company & Directors' Information:- J N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1997PTC088802

Company & Directors' Information:- P. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MP1982PTC002078

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1999PTC031067

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45202CT2007PTC020304

Company & Directors' Information:- L S CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA2012PTC063895

Company & Directors' Information:- G D CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1985PTC039687

Company & Directors' Information:- J & J CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U70109WB1991PTC052664

Company & Directors' Information:- M C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1985PTC039150

Company & Directors' Information:- N C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042382

Company & Directors' Information:- M R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201CH1995PTC017071

Company & Directors' Information:- B A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB2002PTC024960

Company & Directors' Information:- A S D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125030

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP1987PTC008025

Company & Directors' Information:- G K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AS1988PTC003035

Company & Directors' Information:- H H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1980PTC022610

Company & Directors' Information:- R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002234

Company & Directors' Information:- J H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1998PTC115057

Company & Directors' Information:- S. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101MH2003PTC139538

Company & Directors' Information:- K P N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2014PTC092096

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC071441

Company & Directors' Information:- R . C . S . CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911UP1999PTC024964

Company & Directors' Information:- U R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC120032

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45500AP2016PTC104385

Company & Directors' Information:- U E CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA2002PTC030635

Company & Directors' Information:- U D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1990PTC002649

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1989PTC017300

Company & Directors' Information:- R S S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH1990PTC003927

Company & Directors' Information:- I. A. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC029569

Company & Directors' Information:- B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1972PTC015731

Company & Directors' Information:- S A K CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2007PTC055386

Company & Directors' Information:- L & I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UR2006PTC032334

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1990PTC011951

Company & Directors' Information:- P B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AP1998PTC028800

Company & Directors' Information:- I R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC084160

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202AP1996PTC023724

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1993PTC013953

Company & Directors' Information:- A. W. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MP2009PTC022110

Company & Directors' Information:- S B R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70100MH1982PTC027337

Company & Directors' Information:- G V K CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1985PTC011867

Company & Directors' Information:- G T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101UP1980PTC004982

Company & Directors' Information:- I. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003931

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039632

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45309AS1988PTC003041

Company & Directors' Information:- N. M. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067227

Company & Directors' Information:- B N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1981PTC001015

Company & Directors' Information:- D F CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1991PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400PB2009PTC032554

Company & Directors' Information:- I S K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TN2006PTC059103

Company & Directors' Information:- K R V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC075836

Company & Directors' Information:- R S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC078562

Company & Directors' Information:- K & Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2014PTC150194

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC218327

Company & Directors' Information:- M K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2000PTC127425

Company & Directors' Information:- S R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202MH1982PTC027359

Company & Directors' Information:- Q AND Q CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043373

Company & Directors' Information:- V M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2013PTC087032

Company & Directors' Information:- S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2014PTC035188

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2009PTC191555

Company & Directors' Information:- R S A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC193200

Company & Directors' Information:- B B R L CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC217588

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2012PTC243738

Company & Directors' Information:- A M T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC268935

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2009PTC190268

Company & Directors' Information:- G N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2009PTC193472

Company & Directors' Information:- R P T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2007PTC055960

Company & Directors' Information:- M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2014PTC094893

Company & Directors' Information:- Y & M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2011PTC044664

Company & Directors' Information:- M P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201KA2001PTC029100

Company & Directors' Information:- H K G N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA2003PTC032055

Company & Directors' Information:- R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102AP1989PTC010527

Company & Directors' Information:- V N V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1992PTC050037

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH2000PTC129703

Company & Directors' Information:- H B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH1974PTC017866

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1995PTC022231

Company & Directors' Information:- D B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC053917

Company & Directors' Information:- T V L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057723

Company & Directors' Information:- N N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG2006PTC050240

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CT1983PTC002128

Company & Directors' Information:- A R H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC155870

    Contempt Petition (L) No. 91 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 512 of 2019

    Decided On, 30 July 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. KULKARNI

    For the Petitioner: Ankit Lohia a/w. Bharat Jain, Anubhuti Gandhi i/b. I.C. Legal, Advocates. For the Respondents: R.A. Shaikh, Ubaid Ghawte i/b. Sohel E. Kazi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shaikh instructed by Mr. Sohel Kazi appearing for respondents and more particularly respondent nos. 2 and 3/contemnors.

2. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that there is a willful disobedience and breach of the order dated 6th December, 2018 passed by this Court in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1486 of 2018 and another order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by this Court in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 131 of 2019, by the respondents. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are stated to be partners of Respondent no.1 partnership firm.

3. Before referring to the orders of which contempt is complained, it would be appropriate to note the background of the dispute between the parties.

4. The petitioner had approached this Court in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1486 of 2018 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short 'the Act') praying for interim measures pending arbitral proceedings. The case of the petitioner was of disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in relation to a contract executed between the parties under the agreement dated 28th September, 2018, which pertained to work of six laning of Bihar/Jharkhand Board (Chordaha) to Gorhar Section of National Highway No. 2 from Km. 249.525 to 320.810 in the State of Jharkhand under NHDP Phase V. Respondent no. 1 was appointed as a sub-contractor by the principal contractor-Reliance Infrastructure Limited who was awarded a contract by the National Highway Authority of India for undertaking construction of the said contractual work. The said work was being sub contracted by respondent no.1 to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in pursuance of Clause 19 of the said Agreement entered between petitioner and respondent no. 1 deposited an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- with respondent No.1, on 9 October 2018. As also a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.7,99,20,000/- was furnished by the petitioner to respondent no.1 as performance guarantee, being 5% of the value of the work contracted. The petitioner contended that despite repeated requests, respondent no. 1, who was principally acting through respondent no. 2-Mr. A.A. Ahmed and respondent no.3- Mr.Ashok Namdev Bhat, did not make available to the petitioner the site. The petitioner had mobilized resources by spending substantial amounts, however, work could not be started. On these issues correspondence ensued between the parties. The petitioner time and again informed the respondents that the petitioner at all material times was ready and willing to execute the contractual work and that the petitioner had incurred huge expenditure for procuring and mobilizing additional machinery and towards labour charges. However, as there was no response to any of the petitioner’s grievances and communications, the petitioner had filed said Section 9 Petition.

6. The Court after hearing the parties and as the parties consented that an arbitral tribunal be appointed, passed an order on 6th December, 2019. The relevant paragraphs of the order are required to be extracted, which reads thus:

“4. This petition was heard initially on 27.11.2018. Mr.Ansari appeared for respondent no.1 and made a statement that so far the respondents have not invoked any of the bank guarantees. The said statement was accepted. Thereafter the petition was listed on 3.12.2018. The said statement of the respondents as recorded in the order dated 27.11.2018 has continued to operate till date. The respondents have chosen not to file a reply affidavit.

5. Mr.Ansari learned counsel for the respondents though has opposed the petition, on instructions submits and confirms that the respondents are not immediately inclined to invoke bank guarantee and in the event the bank guarantee is to be invoked, the respondents shall give 15 days notice to the petitioners. Statement of Mr. Ansari is accepted.

6. As regards the merits of the case, from the submissions of Mr.Ansari learned counsel for the respondents, it prima facie appears that there are disputes between the principal contractor M/s Reliance Infrastructure Limited and the respondents and therefore, there appears to be a situation of a stand still in regard to the contract entered by the respondents with the petitioners, resulting into the site not being made available to the petitioner.

7. During the course of hearing of this petition, on a suggestion made to the parties that disputes and differences, as noted above then needs to be resolved by appointing an arbitrator, the learned counsel for parties on instructions fairly state that their respective clients are agreeable for the appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. In view of the above consensus, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, that an arbitrator is appointed for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

8. In regard to the contention of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.75 lacs as received by the respondents under the terms and conditions of the agreement, the said amount certainly needs to be protected, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Prima facie the petitioner has complied its obligation by submitting the bank guarantee to the respondents which is of a substantial amount as also has made deposit of the said amount of Rs.75 lacs.

9. In the above circumstances, in my considered opinion, the present petition needs to be disposed of by the following order :

ORDER

(i) By consent of the parties, Mr.Arif Doctor Advocate is appointed as a prospective sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes and differences between the parties under the agreement dated 28.9.2018.

(ii) The prospective Arbitrator fifteen days before entering a reference shall make a disclosure as per requirement of section 11 (8) read with section 12 (1) of the Act, and shall forward a copy to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to be placed on record of this application as also forward the same to the respective parties.

(iii) The respondent is directed to deposit Rs.75 lacs in a separate no lien account. Such deposit shall be subject to further orders which would be passed by the learned arbitrator either under proceedings under section 17 of the Act or the final adjudication in the arbitral proceedings as the learned arbitrator may deem proper and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions.

(iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the matter are expressly kept open.

(v) The above observations made in this order are prima facie and are relevant to the adjudication of the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and thus is not a reflection on the merits of the disputes between the parties.

10. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. It can be clearly seen from the above orders passed by this Court that firstly the respondents made a statement to the Court that they will not immediately invoke the bank guarantee and in the event the bank guarantee is to be invoked, the respondents shall give 15 days notice to the petitioner and this was accepted as solemn statement as made to the Court. With regard to the amount of Rs.75,00,000/-, the Court categorically directed the respondents in paragraph 9(iii) of the said order to deposit the said amount in a separate no lien account and such deposit shall be subject to further orders which would be passed by the learned arbitral tribunal in the proceedings under section 17.

8. It has so transpired that the orders of the Court on both these counts, i.e., firstly in regard to the 15 days notice to be given to the petitioner of the invocation of bank guarantee and secondly, in regard to the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to be deposited in a separate no lien account, were not complied and with impunity. Respondent nos.2 and 3 attempted to encash the bank guarantee of such substantial amount without giving a notice to the petitioner, however were not successful as noted hereinafter. The petitioner on this backdrop filed another Petition under Section 9 of the Act (Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 131 of 2019) contending that contrary to the statement as made before the Court and as recorded in the order dated 6th December, 2018, the respondents’ advocate Mr. Chinmay Chakravarty by letter dated 30th January, 2019 invoked bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. It was contended that such an invocation without notice to the petitioner would be contrary to the order dated 6th December, 2018 passed by this Court. This Court on 7th February, 2019 passed the following ad-interim order:

“Not on board. Taken on board.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has issued notice of today's application to the respondent nos.1 and 2 as also its advocates. However, none appears for the respondents.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 21.2.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order passed by this Court, in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This Court on 6.12.2018 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.1486 of 2018 had made the following relevant observations:

“5. Mr.Ansari learned counsel for the respondents though have opposed the petition on instructions submits and confirms that the respondents are not immediately inclined to invoke bank guarantee and in the event the bank guarantee is to be invoked, the respondents shall give 15 days notice to the petitioners. Statement of Mr. Ansari is accepted.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to a letter dated 30.1.2019 of the respondent's advocate to contend that the respondents nos. 1 and 2 have now through Advocate Shri Chinmoy Chakravarti have invoked the bank guarantee. It is also submitted that the parties are already before the arbitral tribunal. Such an action on the part of respondent nos.1 and 2 invoking the bank guarantee would be contrary to the above orders passed by this Court.

5. Having gone through the orders passed by this Court as noted above, and the letter dated 30.1.2019 addressed by Mr.Chinmoy Chakravarti in my prima facie opinion, an ad-interim protection would be required to be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, till the adjourned date of hearing, there will be ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) (ii) of the petition:

“a. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition and pending the arbitral proceedings and the declaration and execution of the Award that may be passed by the Arbitrators :

(ii) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent no.3by a temporary order and injunction from paying any amountsunder the said PBG dated 27th September 2018 forRs.7,99,20,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Ninety Nine Lacs and Twenty Thousand only).

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. Thereafter the respondents appeared in the said Petition and could not justify the action of the respondents in addressing the said letter of their advocate dated 30 January 2019 invoking bank guarantee in breach of the solemn statement made to the Court and as recorded in paragraph 5 of the order dated 6 December 2018. The Court after considering the rival contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner and that of the respondents, disposed of Commercial Arbitration (L) No. 131 of 2019 by a detailed order. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are required to be noted, which reads as under:-

“8] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, and having perused the record, it is quite clear that while disposing of Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.1486 of 2018, by an order dated 6th December, 2018, this Court in paragraph No.5 of the said order recorded a categorical statement, as made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, that the respondents are not immediately inclined to invoke the bank guarantee and in the event the bank guarantee is to be invoked, respondents shall give 15 days notice to the petitioners. Mr. Lohia, would be correct in his contention that without giving 15 days notice, bank guarantee could not have been invoked by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by their advocate's letter dated 30thJanuary, 2019 as addressed to the respondent No.3 bank. It was a statement as made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to the Court which came to be recorded. Once such a statement was made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which forms part of the order, then certainly, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were bound by the statement and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were obliged to abide by the statement till the said orders passed by the Court subsisted.

9] It, however, appears that for certain reasons which cannot be subject matter of adjudication in this proceeding, a letter dated 30 th January 2019, was addressed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to respondent No.3bank invoking the bank guarantee, without giving 15 days notice to the petitioner. This course of action on the part of respondent Nos. 1 & 2,therefore, was clearly contrary to the position taken by respondent Nos. 1 &2 and recorded in the order dated 6th December, 2018, passed by this Court. In the above circumstances it was necessary for this Court to pass an ad-interim order dated 7th February, 2019 as noted above.

14] In the above circumstances, the interest of justice would require that the petition is disposed of by the following order:

(i) The invocation of the bank guarantee by letter dated 30th January, 2019of advocate of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the order dated 6 th December, 2019 in Arbitration Petition (L) NO.1486 of 2018. Respondent No.3 bank is accordingly directed not to act on the advocate's letter dated30.01.2019.

ii) The statement as made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as recorded in paragraph No.5 of the order dated 6 th December, 2018 passed in Arbitration Petition (L) No.1486 of 2018 shall continue to operate.

iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. The observations made in this order are no expression of any opinion on the merits of the disputes between the parties.

iv) The learned sole arbitrator shall endeavour to pronounce orders on the Section 17 Application expeditiously and preferably within 15 days from today.

vi] Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

15] At this stage learned counsel Mr. Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, very fairly states that his clients are not alleging any impropriety on the part of earlier advocate Mr. Zaid S. Ansari, appointed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in Arbitration Petition (L) No.1486 of 2018.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. Thus considering both the orders dated 6th December, 2018 and subsequent order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by this Court, it is quite clear that the mandate of the said orders was two-fold- firstly, that the order passed by this Court dated 6th December, 2018 directing the respondents to issue 15 days notice to the petitioner before invocation of bank guarantee was required to be complied; secondly, an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was required to be deposited in a separate no lien account by the respondents.

11. Mr.Lohia would contend that notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent no.1 not permitting the petitioner to commence any work at the site and having received substantial amounts and the bank guarantee from the petitioner, a fraud was being perpetrated on the petitioner and this Court, namely despite the above clear orders passed by the Court and the orders being valid, subsisting and binding on the respondents, the respondents and more particularly respondent no. 2/contemnor Mr. A.A. Ahmed again addressed a letter dated 30th April, 2019 to the Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Banjara Hills Branch, again invoking the said bank guarantee without a notice of 15 days to the petitioner as directed in the orders dated 6 December 2018 and 14 March 2019, and in the said letter represented the said bank that there is no order of any Court operating against him from issuing the said demand upon the bank and that he was being entitled to make demand. It would be appropriate to note the contents of the said letter:

“1. I, Mr.A.A. Ahmed, partner of M/s. Glove Infracom GS Road, Bhangadhar, Guwahati , Assam do hereby inform you that M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Constructions, having office 301, Dhruva-1 8-3-228, Sreenivasa Village, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, the contractor had entered into an agreement with M/s. Glove Infracom, GS Road, Bhangadhar, Guwahati, Assam and said agreement required the contractor to furnish a performance security for due and faithful performance of its obligations, under and in accordance with the agreement during the construction period.

2. You, the bank, had unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed the due and faithful performance of the contractor’s obligations during the construction period under and in accordance with the said agreement and agreed to pay Authority, that is M/s. Glove Infracom, upon first written demand and without any demur, reservation, recourse, contest or protest, and without any reference to the contractor such amount not exceeding Rs.7,99,20,000/- as the Authority shall claim without the Authority being required to prove or to show grounds or reasons for its demand.

3. Accordingly, I, the authority, hereby state that the contractor has defaulted in due and faithful performance of its obligation during and under the agreement and therefore make a demand of a sum of Rs.7,99,19.999/- (Rupees Seven Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) upon you.

4. I state that there is no order of any Court operating against me from issuing this demand upon you and I am legally entitled to make this demand.

5. I therefore call upon you to issue a demand draft of Rs.7,99,19,999/- (Rupees Seven Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine) in the name of M/s. Glove Infracom payable at Mirganj forthwith as being duty and obligations cast upon you in terms of the said bank guarantee.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. Admittedly, there was no compliance of the orders passed by this Court before writing such a letter in as much as the petitioner was not issued a 15 days notice despite the specific directions of this Court contained in the said two orders dated 6 December 2018 and 14 March 2019. The petitioner was informed by the bank that respondent no. 2 alongwith his advocate approached the bank along with the said letter seeking encashment of the bank guarantee, and had not informed the bank of the orders passed by this Court. The bank being informed of the orders passed by this Court by the petitioner, such an attempt of the respondents to receive huge amount of money under the bank guarantee, that too in breach of the orders passed by this Court, was rendered unsuccessful. The petitioner has also placed on record the photograph of respondent no. 2/contemnor present in the bank along with his advocate. (Page no. 92 and 93 of the Paper Book) These facts are not denied by the respondents.

13. Further the fact remains that the respondents have also not deposited the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- in a non lien account as directed by this Court in its order dated 6 December 2018. As to what has transpired on this count is simply unconscionable and outrageous as would be discussed later.

14. This Court had heard the Contempt Petition on the earlier occasions on 17th June, 2019 when the respondents were represented through Advocate Mr. Singh, who stated that he would file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. After having heard Mr. Singh, the Court had passed a detailed order on 20th June, 2019 recording that prima facie it appeared, respondent nos. 1 and 2 (then the parties) had willfully breached the orders dated 6th December, 2018 and 14th March, 2019 passed by this Court. The Court accordingly issued show-cause notice to these respondents as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for willfully breached the said orders passed by this Court.

15. By further order dated 4th July, 2019 an opportunity was granted to the contemnors to purge the contempt. The following order came to be passed:-

“1.Today, in pursuance of the earlier order dated 20th June, 2019, affidavit dated 3rd July, 2019 of respondent no. 2/contemnor is tendered by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Considering the contents of the affidavit at this stage of the proceeding and before final orders are passed in this Contempt Petition, it is appropriate that the respondents/contemnors show their bonafides and deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.75 lakhs within one week from today. This amount was directed to be deposited by the respondents in a separate no lien account, which was not complied by the respondents. A copy of the names of other partners of respondent no. 1, which is already stated to be submitted to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, be also furnished to the advocate for the petitioner during the course of the day. The respondents/contemnors are directed to remain present in the Court on the adjourned date of hearing.

3. Stand over to 11th July, 2019 (FOB). Interim order passed earlier shall continue to operate till the adjourned date of hearing.”

16. However, respondent no. 2 again failed to comply with the said order. There was also no justification for non-compliance of the orders in regard to the deposit of amount as also on wrongful invocation of the bank guarantee contrary to the order passed by this Court. It is on this background the Court heard the matter on 11th July, 2019. It is required to be noted that this juncture the respondents changed their advocate and appointed Mr. Sohel Kazi as an advocate by discharging Advocate Mr. Singh. Another indulgence was shown to the respondents/contemnors to deposit an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- as directed by this Court . It will be appropriate to note the order dated 11th July, 2019 which reads thus:

“1. Mr. Andhyarujina states that he is briefed only in Contempt Petition No. 115 of 2019 and he is not informed about the earlier contempt proceedings which were tagged along with Petition. Mr. Andhyarujina has stated that he would be returning his brief, as it would not be possible for him to continue in the matter.

2. Despite clear orders that the amount of Rs.75 lakhs shall be deposited in this Court, again today Mr. Sohal Kazi, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that his clients could not deposit the amount and makes statement that the respondents be given a last chance and his clients would deposit the amount of Rs.75 lakhs in this Court on or before 16thJuly, 2019.

3. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 20th June, 2019, it is informed that the advocate for the respondents by his letter dated 5th July, 2019 informed advocate for the petitioner, the names of the partners of respondent no. 1 to be Mr. A.A. Ahmed and Mr. Ashok Namdev Bhatt and having their office at G.S. Road, Bhangaghar, Guwahati, Assam. Today both the partners, i.e., Mr. A.A. Ahmed and Mr. Ashok Namdev Bhatt are present in the Court.

4. I have put some questions to contemnor Mr. Ashok Bhatt. He states that he is a partner of respondent no. 1 since about one year but he does not remember the exact date or the month. He states that some agreement is signed by him, however, he does not have copy of the agreement. He states that the agreement is with Mr. A.A. Ahmed. When Mr. Bhatt was asked whether he has received any remuneration or share in the profits of the partnership firm, he states that he has not received any amounts from the respondent no. 1 either as any remuneration or share in profits. He states that one Mr. P.S. Mishra had prepared the agreement and on the insistence of Mr.P.S.Mishra, he has signed the agreement and not on the insistence or request of Mr. A.A. Ahmed.

5. Thereafter learned Advocate for the respondents Mr. A.K. Singh by his letter dated 5th July, 2019 addressed to the petitioner’s advocate had informed the address of Mr. Ashok Bhatt to be at G.S. Road, Bhangaghar, Guwahati, Assam. On being questioned Mr. Bhatt states that he is not aware of the said address at Guwahati in Assam and he has never visited Guwahati. For the perusal of the Court Mr. Bhatt has submitted his Aadhar Card on which the address is mentioned as 106, Navin Niwas, Taluka-Radhnagari, Yelvade, Kolhapur, Kodavade. He has also submitted his Pancard. Copy of the Aadhar card and Pancard are kept on record. Mr. Ashok Bhatt states that presently he is residing at Mumbai in a tenement which belongs to one Prakash Gosavi at Suryodaya Apartment, Room No. 109, Vasant Nagar, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. Mr. Bhatt states that he is not assigned any work but he only sits in the office of Mr. P.S. Mishra which is also stated to be the office of respondent no. 1, ground floor, Navjot building, Juhu, Mumbai. He states that he was in fact appointed by Mr. P.S. Mishra. He states that he has not read the agreement but has only signed it without knowing the contents of the agreement.

6. The aforesaid statements as made by Mr. Bhatt clearly show that all is not well with respondent no. 1. It also prima facie appears that there are attempts to conceal correct facts on the part of respondent no. 1 firm and Mr. A.A. Ahmed even when it comes to complying with the order dated 4 th July, 2019 passed by this Court directing respondent no. 1 and Mr. A.A. Ahmed-respondent no. 2 to furnish correct names of partners. The disclosure as noted above does not appear to be a bonafide disclosure. There appears to be a deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to hide information some of which is now revealed from the statements of Mr. Ashok Bhatt as recorded when the queries were put to Mr. Ashok Bhatt in the open Court.

7. Prima facie the Record and the orders passed by this Court would indicate that respondent no. 1 and Mr. A.A. Ahmed even in the past were not forthright and have acted contrary to the orders passed by this Court.

8. Thus, on the background of what has transpired before the Court on the earlier occasions and today and considering various orders which are passed by this Court from time to time, it appears that there are serious issues which are involved in the respondents showing scant regard to the process of law and above all the orders of the Court. The respondent it appears are oblivious that there is a rule of law when it comes to honouring the mandate of the orders of the Court and respecting the majesty of law.

9. In the interest of justice, as a last chance, the proceedings are adjourned to 16thJuly, 2019 (High on Board) to enable the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.75 lakhs in this Court.

10. As respondent no. 1 has taken a clear position that Ashok Bhatt is a partner, it would be appropriate that Mr. Ashok Bhatt be impleaded as party-respondent no. 3 to the present proceedings. Leave to amend. Mr. Ashok Bhatt has not filed any reply to the contempt proceedings, hence he is permitted to file reply on the adjourned date of hearing.

11. However, as a sequel to the above observations, it would be necessary that Mr. A.A. Ahmed, respondent no. 2 and Mr. Ashok Bhatt, who is now stated to be partner of respondent no. 1, file affidavits and place on record the registered deed of partnership, supplementary deed of partnership. The respondents/contemnors would also place on record on affidavit the audited accounts of the last two financial years upto 31st March, 2019. Mr. Ashok Bhatt shall also set out in the affidavit as to what is his real relation with Mr. P.S. Mishra in whose office he is sitting and on whose instructions he has signed the agreement without knowing the contents of the agreement, as stated in the Court and any other further details. These affidavits be filed before the adjourned date of hearing.

12. Both Mr. A.A. Ahmed and Mr. Ashok Bhatt are directed to remain present on the adjourned date of hearing.

13. It needs to be noted that in all these proceedings which were heard by this Court from time to time, respondents/contemnors have changed their advocate on almost all the occasions. In the Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1486 of 2019, Mr. Zaid Ansari was briefed to appear for the respondents. Thereafter the respondents appointed Mr. Himanshu Desai a/w. Mr. Zaigam Rizvi. Again the said advocates were changed and Mr. M.S. Singh was appointed to represent the respondents. Thereafter Mr. A.K. Singh appeared on last occasion and today it is Mr. Sohail Kazi who has represented the respondents. Mr. Sohail Kazi states that earlier advocate Mr. A.K. Singh has given a NOC Vakalatnama and he had accordingly instructed Mr. Andhyarujina to appear in Contempt Petition No. 115 of 2019. Mr. A.A. Ahmed, respondent no. 2-contemnor states that he would continue with Mr. Sohail Kazi as the respondents’ advocate and now respondents will not change the advocate. Mr. Kazi states that he would be filing Vakalatnama during the course of the day. Statement is accepted.

14. It is required to be noted that it is quite peculiar that on every occasion new advocates are appointed and with different instructions, surely this is not a happy situation.

15. Stand over to 18th July, 2019 at 3.00 p.m.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. It is thus clear that only in pursuance of the earlier orders passed by this Court, it was disclosed that respondent no. 3-Ashok Bhatt is also a partner of respondent no. 1. Mr.Ashok Bhatt was also concealing facts from this Court, while being a partner was aware about the orders of the Court and its binding mandate. Mr.Bhatt has never said that he in capacity as a partner he was not aware of the said orders passed by this Court. It was in fact solemnly stated before the Court by Mr.Ashok Bhatt that he was not aware as to when he was made a partner of the said firm. He was also not aware what was the agreement with Ahmed. He had also stated that he was also not having a copy of the agreement. Further, he made a solemn statement that he has not received any remuneration or share in profits. He had stated that he was inducted as a partner at the insistence of Mr. P.S.Mishra and at whose behest he has signed the agreement and on the insistence of respondent no. 2-Mr. A.A. Ahmed. All these statements are brazenly false as seen from the record.

18. The Court accordingly heard the Contempt Petition on 18th July, 2019 when Mr. Shaikh learned Counsel for the respondents/contemnors had sought to contend that his clients be permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- instead of Rs.75,00,000/- to be deposited in a no lien account. Mr. Shaikh also tendered the bank statement of account of respondent no. 1- firm maintained with Federal Bank. Mr. Shaikh also fairly submitted that he would also place on record bank statements of the firm’s account from January, 2018 and accordingly the same are tendered today for perusal of the Court. What is revealed from these bank statements is shocking. The bank statements shows that the only major amount which was received by respondent no.1 was Rs.75 lakhs as received from the petitioner on 9 October 2018, out of which Rs.40 lakhs are withdrawn in cash by respondent no.2 Mr.A.A.Ahmed. An amount of Rs.75,000/- is also paid to Mr.Ashok Bhatt, which belies his solemn statement that he had never received any amounts from respondent no.1.

19. As on 18th July, 2019 the respondents/contemnors were directed to remain present in the Court, but had failed to remain present, bailable warrants were required to issue against both the respondents/contemnors. The order of the Court dated 18th July, 2019 is required to be noted and reads thus:

“1. On the backdrop of the earlier orders dated 17 June 2019, 20 June 2019, 4 July 2019 and 11 July 2019 the matter is placed today. This Court in its order dated 11 July 2019 recorded a statement on behalf of the respondents-contemners that an amount of Rs.75 lakhs will be deposited in this Court on or before 16 July 2019. It needs to be noted that in fact the amount was to be deposited by the respondents in pursuance of the directions in the order dated 6 December 2018 passed in Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg) no.1486 of 2018, the breach of which is the subject matter of the present contempt proceedings.

2. As observed in the earlier orders, the Court is at loss to find any further words, to record the contemptuous conduct of the respondents-contemners. Despite the clear directions of this Court in its order dated 6 December 2018 and undertaking of the respondents as recorded in the last order dated 11 July 2019, neither the amount of Rs.75 lakhs has been deposited nor the contemners who were directed to remain present in the Court pursuant to the contempt notice, are present in the Court. Further paragraph 11 of the said order is also not complied. It would be appropriate to note the observations and the directions of this Court in the said order dated 11 July 2019:-

8. Thus, on the background of what has transpired before the Court on the earlier occasions and today and considering various orders which are passed by this Court from time to time, it appears that there are serious issues which are involved in the respondents showing scant regard to the process of law and above all the orders of the Court. The respondent it appears are oblivious that there is a rule of law when it comes to honouring the mandate of the orders of the Court and respecting the majesty of law.

9. In the interest of justice, as a last chance, the proceedings are adjourned to 16th July, 2019 (High on Board) to enable the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.75 lakhs in this Court.

10. As respondent no. 1 has taken a clear position that Ashok Bhatt is a partner, it would be appropriate that Mr. Ashok Bhatt be impleaded as party-respondent no. 3 to the present proceedings. Leave to amend. Mr. Ashok Bhatt has not filed any reply to the contempt proceedings, hence he is permitted to file reply on the adjourned date of hearing.

11. However, as a sequel to the above observations, it would be necessary that Mr. A.A. Ahmed, respondent no. 2 and Mr. Ashok Bhatt, who is now stated to be partner of respondent no. 1, file affidavits and place on record the registered deed of partnership, supplementary deed of partnership. The respondents/contemnors would also place on record on affidavit the audited accounts of the last two financial years upto 31st March, 2019. Mr. Ashok Bhatt shall also set out in the affidavit as to what is his real relation with Mr. P.S. Mishra in whose office he is sitting and on whose instructions he has signed the agreement without knowing the contents of the agreement, as stated in the Court and any other further details. These affidavits be filed before the adjourned date of hearing.

12. Both Mr. A.A. Ahmed and Mr. Ashok Bhatt are directed to remain present on the adjourned date of hearing.

13. It needs to be noted that in all these proceedings which were heard by this Court from time to time, respondents/contemnors have changed their advocate on almost all the occasions. In the Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1486 of 2019, Mr. Zaid Ansari was briefed to appear for the respondents. Thereafter the respondents appointed Mr. Himanshu Desai a/w. Mr. Zaigam Rizvi. Again the said advocates were changed and Mr. M.S. Singh was appointed to represent the respondents. Thereafter Mr. A.K. Singh appeared on last occasion and today it is Mr. Sohail Kazi who has represented the respondents. Mr. Sohail Kazi states that earlier advocate Mr. A.K. Singh has given a NOC Vakalatnama and he had accordingly instructed Mr. Andhyarujina to appear in Contempt Petition No. 115 of 2019. Mr. A.A. Ahmed, respondent no. 2-contemnor states that he would continue with Mr. Sohail Kazi as the respondents’ advocate and now respondents will not change the advocate. Mr. Kazi states that he would be filing Vakalatnama during the course of the day. Statement is accepted.”

3. Today Mr.R.A.Shaikh is briefed to appear in the present proceedings although instructed by Mr.Kazi.

4. It is more than clear that the respondent through its partners Mr.A.A.Ahmad and Mr.Ashok Namdev Bhat have no regard to the orders passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondents -contemners states that instead of Rs.75 lakhs today Rs.15 lakhs be accepted. Such a bargaining on the face of the repeated orders recording an undertaking of the respondent-contemners, is certainly not acceptable. It appears that the contemners are not only beyond the instructions of their Advocates, but willfully are flouting the clear mandate of the order passed by this Court.

5. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents-contemners that Mr.A.A.Ahmad was required to travel to Assam and hence he could not remain present. It is surprising as to how he could travel when he was aware that he was directed to remain present in the Court. It is stated that in fact at all material times, he was at Mumbai. If Mr.A.A.Ahmed wanted any modification to the orders passed by this Court and an exemption from not remaining present, surely, appropriate steps could have been to move an application as what is expected from a bonafide and prudent person. No such attempt was made or any application moved. There is thus no justification whatsoever on record as to not remaining present in the Court.

6. Mr.Ashok Bhat, the other partner, as already recorded is a resident of Mumbai, is also not present in the Court. There is no reason /justification coming forth nor his absence set out. The conduct of both the contemners is a brazen breach of the orders of the Court and in fact is an aggravated contempt.

7. In the above circumstances, there is no alternative but to secure presence of these contemners by following the process of law. It is stated that the latest address of Mr.A.A.Ahmad – contemnor is “22, Prince Commercial Complex, G.S.Road, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam.”

8. Accordingly, issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- against both the contemners-respondents returnable on 25 July 2019. The bailable warrant against Mr.A.A.Ahmad be served on the following address:

“22, Prince Commercial Complex,

G.S.Road, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam.”

The bailable warrant against Mr.Ashok Namdev Bhat be sent on the following address:

No.1, Ground Floor, Dharam Jyot,

A.B.Nair Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400049.

9. In the meantime, both the respondents are directed to deposit their passports in the Court and also keep informed their whereabouts to the Station Incharge of the police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing. This be complied within a period of three days from today.

10. Stand over to 25 July 2019 at 3 p.m.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The Court had clearly recorded that the contemnors/respondent nos. 2 and 3 appeared to have no regard to the orders passed by this Court. It was clear from the various orders which were passed from time to time that not only the approach of the contemnors towards the orders of the Court was extremely casual but in fact they were attempting to mislead this Court and abuse the process of law.

21. The Court thereafter heard the matter on 25th July, 2019 when the respondents/contemnors in pursuance of the earlier orders, remained present in the Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the contemnors were permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in this Court as also to deposit the original document of bank guarantee of Rs.7.99 crores.

22. Accordingly, today Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors has today tendered the original document of the bank guarantee and also Demand Draft of Rs.15,00,000/- The same are accepted and shall be without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and contentions. This also cannot be regarded, even remotely either a compliance of the orders of the Court or any acceptance of the contempt being purged. It is only on the insistence and persuasion of Mr.Shaikh the said demand draft is being accepted.

23. As noted earlier Mr. Shaikh has tendered for perusal of the Court the bank statement of respondent no. 1 giving details of bank account of respondent no. 1 in Federal Bank for the period from 01.01.2018 till 31.12.2018. Mr. Shaikh has also tendered an affidavit of reply of Ashok Namdeo Bhatt-respondent no. 3. Considering the proceedings before the Court, which are contempt proceedings, it will be appropriate to note the limited contents of the said affidavit of respondent no. 3-Mr. Ashok Bhat which reads thus:

“1. I say that the petitioner has filed the Contempt Petition against me and respondent nos. 1 and 2 by claiming that there is a contempt by respondents.

2. I say that I am the partner in respondent no. 1 Company, by the Deed of Partnership dated 10th December, 2018 I have been inducted in the business and it was agreed that My profit will be 5% in the business. The said partnership deed is now annexed as Exhibit A to the present reply.

3. I say that I have very limited knowledge relates to the transaction between sri Sai Krishna Construction and Glove Infracom Company as said transaction took place in September 2018.

4. I say that I have no intention to commit contempt of the order if any contempt is committed by me, I therefore pray to this Hon’ble Court that contempt may be purged against me.

5. I say that whatever stated above is true and to the best of my knowledge.”

24. The above contents of Mr.Ashok Bhat's affidavit ex facie indicate that Mr.Bhat has no remorse, he has not even bothered to tender an apology much less an unconditional apology. When query is made to Mr. Ashok Bhatt why he did not disclose that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was received from respondent no. 1 on 9th October, 2018, he has no explanation to offer when he had made a solemn statement before the Court, that he had not received any amount from respondent no. 1, as recorded in the order dated 11th July, 2019 passed by this Court. Thus even Mr.Bhat's attempt is to make false statements on the face of the Court, and mislead the Court, thereby interfering in the administration of justice.

25. Even when it comes to the statements of Mr.Bhat about he being made a partner, none of the contemnors had produced before the Court the original partnership deed and what is tendered today is the xerox copy of the partnership deed dated 10th December, 2018. Advocate Mr. Sohel Kazi for respondent no. 2 would state that he has also not seen the original partnership deed though it is forming a part of the affidavit.

26. Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the manner in which respondents/contemnors have conducted themselves, surely a copy of the partnership as tendered today without the original being before the Court or even being shown to their own advocates by these respondents, ought not to be believed for any purpose.

27. However in the present proceedings the question is, as to the willful disobedience and breach of the orders passed by the Court at the hands of respondent nos. 2 and 3 clearly undermining the authority of the Court. Considering the record and the affidavits as filed on behalf of the respondents, in my opinion, the inevitable conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondents/contemnors have willfully disobeyed the orders dated 6th December, 2018 and 14th March, 2019 passed by this Court but also have clearly misled and misrepresented the Court on several counts as observed in the detailed order passed by this Court dated 20th June, 2019 read with order dated 11th July, 2019 and further order dated 18th July, 2019. Why an action for contempt of court is justified in the present facts can be noted. Respondent no. 2 was granted an opportunity to respond to this Contempt Petition by filing affidavit. A reply affidavit of respondent no.2 dated 3rd July, 2019 is placed on record. A plain reading of the said affidavit would make it clear that respondent no. 2 neither has any explanation to have breached the mandate of the orders passed by this Court nor has any remorse of such conduct. Even an apology which is tendered by respondent no. 2 is false and is an unrealistic, which by no stretch of imagination can be accepted in genuine and real terms to be a bonafide apology in contempt proceedings, namely to uphold the respect, majesty and dignity of the orders of this Court. This would be clear from the reading of paragraph 3 of the affidavit of respondent no.2 Mr.A.A.Ahmed which reads thus :

“3. I say that I am tendering unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court if anything is happen due to misunderstanding and lack of legal knowledge.”

28. It is quite clear that contemnors/respondent no. 2 and 3 at all material times were conscience of the binding mandate of the orders passed by this Court and were conscious of what would be the appropriate actions which would be required to be taken to comply the said orders so as to uphold the majesty of this Court. There is no explanation forthcoming from either of the contemnors as to why despite the clear orders passed by this Court as noted above and why on two occasions a notice of 15 days was not issued to the petitioners before invoking bank guarantee. Admittedly this cannot happen on two occasions unless there are sinister motives. These instances have happened firstly when respondent no. 2 attempted to invoke the said bank guarantee of Rs.7.99 crores on 30th January, 2019 and thereafter on 30th April, 2019; Further, a solemn statement is made in paragraph 5 of respondent no.2's affidavit dated 3rd July 2019 that the respondents have already deposited Rs.75,00,000/- in Federal Bank in a fixed deposit and that he intended to transfer the said amount in to a no lien account but the bank refused to do so. The said statement as made by respondent no.2 on affidavit in the present contempt proceedings, is required to be noted and reads thus:

“5. I say that this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct me to deposit Rs.75 lac in a separate no lien account. Such deposit shall be subject to further orders which would be passed by the learned Arbitrator either under proceedings under section 17 of the Act or the final adjudication in arbitral proceedings as the learned arbitrator may deem proper and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions. I further say that I had already deposited Rs.75 lacs in Federal Bank in Fixed Deposit and I want to transfer the said amount in no lien account but Bank has refused to do so therefore I am unable to deposit Rs.75 lacs in no lien account. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give me one month time to deposit Rs. 75 lac in no lien account and/or before this Hon’ble Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

29. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors as an officer of the Court would fairly submit that the said statement as made by respondent no.2/contemnor Mr. A.A. Ahmed on affidavit is a false statement, in as much as there is no such deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- stated to be maintained with the Federal Bank and further the statement that the bank had refused to transfer the said amount to no lien account is also not correct. This clearly shows the extent the respondent no.2-Mr. A.A. Ahmed can go to interfere with the due course of justice by filing false affidavit that too in contempt proceedings. Respondent no.2-Mr.A.A.Ahmed apart from having no regard to the orders passed by this Court, has interfered in the course of administration of justice in making a false statement on affidavit and thereby mislead the Court, when admittedly no such Fixed Deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- was maintained in the Federal Bank. Such a statement and that too in the Contempt proceedings surely would amount to aggravated contempt of the orders passed by this Court.

30. There is more light which is thrown on this issue. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which would show that the petitioner approached the Federal Bank to ascertain the statement as made on behalf of the respondents/contemno

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rs of the Fixed Deposit receipt of Rs.75 lakhs as forwarded to the petitioner by the respondents as stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 3 July 2019 only to be told by the bank that no such fixed deposit was taken out by respondent no. 1 and indicating that what was shown was a forged fixed deposit receipt forwarded by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. The letter of the Federal Bank as also a copy of fixed deposit receipt dated 26th April, 2019 is annexed at Page 118 of the additional affidavit of the petitioner. The letter of the Federal Bank dated 4th July, 2019 addressed to the petitioner's advocate reads thus: “Upon perusing the records available with us, we may inform you that no such Term Deposit, as mentioned in your letter, is opened/maintained by M/s. Glove Infracom with the branch. Though the account number mentioned by you pertains to a Term Deposit of this branch, the same is not in the name of M/s. Glove Infracom. Morevoer, the Customer ID mentioned by you in your letter dated 17.06.2019 also does not exist, as per Bank’s request.” 31. The aforesaid discussion will leave no manner of doubt of the contemnors are guilty of not only willful disobeying the orders passed by this Court as also time and again have mislead the Court by filing false affidavits and interfered with the administration of justice. In these proceeding I am not conducting any enquiry on the forgery of documents, suffice to observe that on the material on record, it would be sufficient for this Court in exercise of this contempt jurisdiction to consider the falsity of the solemn statements as made on affidavit by the contemnors before this Court. 32. Thus the only and only conclusion which can be discerned is that the respondents/contemnors are not only required to be held guilty for having willfully breached mandate of the orders dated 6th December, 2018 and 14th March, 2019 passed by this Court but it would be also required to be held that there is substantial interference by the respondent/contemnors with the due course of justice certainly requiring the Court to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution, as clearly seen from the affidavits filed by the contemnors in the present proceedings, and hence are required to be punished for having committed contempt of Court. 33. Before parting it is required to be noted that the Court is a guardian of the rule of law being concerned with the administration of justice. What is paramount is the faith and confidence of the people in the process of the Court. The process of administration of justice cannot be so casually and with impunity tarnished and/or interfered by such contemptuous action. The Court is required to take all possible measures and with iron hands when unscrupulous litigants make an attempt to derail the course of justice and interfere in the administration of justice. No person is permitted to undermine the authority of law. In the present case all due caution was exercised and ample opportunity was given to the contemnors even to purge the contempt, however, at every possible stage the contemnors have undermined the authority of the Court, thereby attempting to bring the administration of justice to disrepute. It is clear that the degree and extent of the contumacious conduct on the part of both the contemnors is equal both being responsible for the actions of respondent no.1. Once the wilful disobedience to the orders of the Court is ex facie apparent, certainly the Court will not hesitate to impose such appropriate punishment as the law would command. This is surely not a case where any lineancy would be expected. The contumacious conduct has been persistent and also throughout the contempt proceedings there was no repentance on the part of the contemnors. Thus applying the settled principles of law a stricter view is required to be taken, when there is no doubt of the contemnors interfering in the course of judicial proceedings and their willful and brazen flouting of the orders of the Court. 34. I have heard Mr. Shaikh on the punishment. The aforesaid finding would clearly indicate that the respondents/contemnors are in gross contempt of the orders passed by this Court and there is a willful attempt on the part of the contemnors to interfere in the course of administration of justice. If the contentions of Mr. Shaikh to show any leniency are accepted, in my opinion, it would be sending a wrong message, that persons who have throughout not only breached the orders passed by the Courts but who have, time and again mislead the Court and even on affidavits as filed in this Contempt proceedings would stand rewarded. Such an approach certainly cannot be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly considering the larger interest of administration of justice. 35. Accordingly, the respondent nos.2 and 3 -contemnors are held guilty for having willfully breached the mandate of the orders dated 6 December 2018 and 14 March 2019 passed by this Court and are accordingly sentenced to be detained in Civil prison for a period of three months from today. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are accordingly directed to be forthwith taken into custody. 36. In the facts of the case and as noted above, Mr. Shaikh's request to suspend the sentence cannot be accepted. 37. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of above order. No costs.
O R