Allowed

V.K.Bansal v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2007APP/1155/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a single judge order convicting the appellant of civil contempt and sentencing him to three months' imprisonment and a fine for failing to deposit the price of containers as ordered. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and punishment on the ground that no official document from the Registrar of Companies or the Company record established the appellant's a

What did the court decide?

The conviction of the present appellant for committing civil contempt and the imposed punishment and fine are set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge convicting the appellant is set aside to

IN	THE ORDINARY	HIGH CO O	URT OF JU RIGINAL	DICATURE CIVIL	AT JURI	BOMBAY SDICTION
		APPEAL	NO.1155		OF	2001
			IN
	CONT	EMPT	PETITION	NO.1	OF	1998
			IN
	NOTICE	OF	MOTION	NO.395	OF	1997
			IN
		SUIT	NO.456		OF	1997
V.K. Bansal Rank Enterprises	v/s Ltd. and ors.			...App ...Res	ellant pondents
Ms S.M.	Podar	i/b	Mr M.L.	Bansal	for	Appellant.
Mr P.C.	Mankad	i/b Mr	P.D. Kadam	for	Respondent	No.1.
Mr	Rajesh	Gehani	for	Resp	ondent	No.3.
CORAM	: D.K.	DESH	MUKH AND	J.H.	BHATIA	JJ.
DATE		:	11TH	OCTO	BER	2007.

THE
ORDINARY

HIGH
CO
O

URT
OF
JU
RIGINAL

DICATURE
CIVIL

AT
JURI

BOMBAY
SDICTION

APPEAL

NO.1155

2001

CONT

EMPT

PETITION

NO.1

1998

NOTICE

MOTION

NO.395

1997

SUIT

NO.456

1997

V.K. Bansal
Rank Enterprises

v/s
Ltd. and ors.

...App
...Res

ellant
pondents

Ms
S.M.

Podar

i/b

Mr
M.L.

Bansal

for

Appellant.

Mr
P.C.

Mankad

i/b
Mr

P.D.
Kadam

for

Respondent

No.1.

Rajesh

Gehani

for

Resp

ondent

No.3.

CORAM

:
D.K.

DESH

MUKH
AND

J.H.

BHATIA

JJ.

DATE

11TH

OCTO

BER

2007.

1.	This appeal is directed against the order
dated 8th	October 2001 passed by the	learned	Single
Judge of	this Court in contempt petition No.1	of	1998.
By that	order, amongst others, original	respondent	No.6
- V.K.	Bansal has been held guilty of	committing	civil
contempt of	this Court and he has been	sentenced	to
undergo simple	imprisonment for a period of	three	months
and also pay	fine of Rs.2,000/-. The facts	in brie	f are
that by order	dated 31st July 1997, the defe	ndant N	o.1 -
Company by	name Aravali Tubes Ltd. was	directed	to
deposit in	Court the price of twelve contain	ers.	The
act of d	isobedience was that though by tha	t order	dated
31st July 199	7 the defendant No.1 - Company	was	directed
to deposit	the price of twelve containers	or	furnish
bank guarantee	in the amount of price	of	twelve
containers, it	was not done. In the conte	mpt	petition
as originally	filed, admittedly the respondent	No.6,	who
is the present	appellant, was not joined as a	party.	He
was subsequen	tly joined as a party. His	defence	was
that he	has been proceeded against describing	him	as
Chairman and	Managing Director of the defendan	t No.1	-
Company.	In fact, he was neither Chairman	nor	Managing
Director of	the defendant No.1 - Company.		Admitted

This appeal is directed against the order

dated
8th

October
2001
passed
by
the

learned

Single

Judge
of

this
Court
in
contempt
petition
No.1

1998.

By
that

order,
amongst
others,
original

respondent

No.6

-
V.K.

Bansal
has
been
held
guilty
of

committing

civil

contempt
of

this
Court
and
he
has
been

sentenced

undergo
simple

imprisonment
for
a
period
of

three

months

and
also
pay

fine
of
Rs.2,000/-.
The
facts

in
brie

f
are

that
by
order

dated
31st
July
1997,
the
defe

ndant
N

o.1
-

Company
by

name
Aravali
Tubes
Ltd.
was

directed

deposit
in

Court
the
price
of
twelve
contain

ers.

The

act
of
d

isobedience
was
that
though
by
tha

t
order

dated

31st
July
199

7
the
defendant
No.1
-
Company

was

directed

to
deposit

the
price
of
twelve
containers

furnish

bank
guarantee

in
the
amount
of
price

twelve

containers,
it

was
not
done.
In
the
conte

mpt

petition

as
originally

filed,
admittedly
the
respondent

No.6,

who

is
the
present

appellant,
was
not
joined
as
a

party.

was
subsequen

tly
joined
as
a
party.
His

defence

was

that
he

has
been
proceeded
against
describing

him

Chairman
and

Managing
Director
of
the
defendan

t
No.1

Company.

In
fact,
he
was
neither
Chairman

nor

Managing

Director
of

the
defendant
No.1
-
Company.

Admitted

position is that though the petition respondent No.6 as a party, there is no averm	ers joined ent made in
the petition that the respondent No.6 is a	Chairman and
Managing Director of the defendant No.1	- Company.
Admittedly, there is also no document in the	form of an
entry in the record of the Registrar	of Companies
produced showing that during the relevant	period, the
present appellant was the Chairman and Ma	naging Director
of the defendant No.1 - Company. There is	also no
document produced on record from the record	of the
defendant No.1 - Company to show that	the present
appellant was a Chairman and Managing directo	r of the
Company at the relevant time. Perusal of the	order of
the learned Single Judge shows that the defence	of the
appellant has been rejected relying on a	complaint filed
before the Criminal Court where respondent No.6	has been
described as Chairman and Managing Director	of the
defendant No.1 - Company. In our opinion,	considering
the nature of the proceedings, unless best	evidence viz.
an entry in record of the Registrar of Compan	ies or in
the record of the Company itself showing	the respondent
No.6 as Chairman and Managing Director of	the defendant
No.1 - Company at the relevant time is	produced, a
quasi-criminal liability could not have been	imposed on
the respondent No.6 who is present appellant.	In this
view of the matter, in our opinion, appeal	deserves to
be allowed. It is accordingly allowed, the	order of the

position
is
that
though
the
petition
respondent
No.6
as
a
party,
there
is
no
averm

ers
joined
ent
made
in

the
petition
that
the
respondent
No.6
is
a

Chairman
and

Managing
Director
of
the
defendant
No.1

-
Company.

Admittedly,
there
is
also
no
document
in
the

form
of
an

entry
in
the
record
of
the
Registrar

of
Companies

produced
showing
that
during
the
relevant

period,
the

present
appellant
was
the
Chairman
and
Ma

naging
Director

of
the
defendant
No.1
-
Company.
There
is

also
no

document
produced
on
record
from
the
record

of
the

defendant
No.1
-
Company
to
show
that

the
present

appellant
was
a
Chairman
and
Managing
directo

r
of
the

Company
at
the
relevant
time.
Perusal
of
the

order
of

the
learned
Single
Judge
shows
that
the
defence

of
the

appellant
has
been
rejected
relying
on
a

complaint
filed

before
the
Criminal
Court
where
respondent
No.6

has
been

described
as
Chairman
and
Managing
Director

of
the

defendant
No.1
-
Company.
In
our
opinion,

considering

the
nature
of
the
proceedings,
unless
best

evidence
viz.

an
entry
in
record
of
the
Registrar
of
Compan

ies
or
in

the
record
of
the
Company
itself
showing

the
respondent

No.6
as
Chairman
and
Managing
Director
of

the
defendant

No.1
-
Company
at
the
relevant
time
is

produced,
a

quasi-criminal
liability
could
not
have
been

imposed
on

the
respondent
No.6
who
is
present
appellant.

In
this

view
of
the
matter,
in
our
opinion,
appeal

deserves
to

be
allowed.
It
is
accordingly
allowed,
the

order
of
the

V.K.Bansal v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Bansal v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mun.Corpn.of Greater Mumbai Vs M/S.Kulkarni and Co.

Micky Khemchand Lalla Vs Bob Cards Ltd.

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commission

M/S.Ajdev Investments and Financial Service P.Ltd. Vs Jamnadas Sakalachand and Ors.

MOOlcHAND K Ranka and Ors. Vs Manohar Vithal Telang

Rajesh Mirkar and Ors. Vs Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. and Anr.