THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.813 of 2009 DATED:24.08.2009 Between: The Hindustan Cables Limited, rep., by its Deputy Finance Manager, P.O.Hindustan Cables, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And S.Krishna Murthy and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.813 of 2009 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, by the petitioner-company, alleging disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 29.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.11566 of 2009 in W.P.No.8821 of 2009. In Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 18.03.2009, by which, its accounts were attached for realization of arrears, on account of the dues payable to the Employees State Insurance Corporation. It was the case of the petitioner company that, by taking coercive steps, the respondents have obtained Demand Drafts for an amount of Rs.21,40,967/-, though the principal amount due is Rs.6,97,638/-. This Court, through order, dated 29.04.2009, while granting interim suspension of the impugned order, directed the respondents to redeposit the Demand Drafts into the account of the petitioner, within a period of three days from the date of order. Now, the complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of such a direction, the respondents have encashed the said Demand Drafts. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, in which, it is stated that the interim order was passed by this Court on 29.04.2009, but the Demand Drafts were presented for encashment on 28.04.2009 itself. It is submitted that in view of the presentation of Demand Drafts on 28.04.2009 for encashment, it has become impossible for them to redeposit the same, and as such, the respondents have not violated the directions issued by this Court. When the matter came up on the last occasion, at the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it was directed to be listed today. Today, learned Standing Counsel has placed on record a copy of the letter, dated 14.08.2009 issued by the State Bank of India, stating that that the Demand Drafts in question were presented for encashment on 28.04.2009 itself. Further, a copy of the statement of the respondents Corporation has also placed on record, which shows that the Demand Drafts were presented on 28.04.2009 and they were cleared on 30.04.2009. In view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the Demand Drafts were presented to the bank on 28.04.2009 i.e., before passing of the order by this Court on 29.04.2009 and the same is evident by the documents produced by him, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully violated the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted by Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner company is facing financial stringency, and the principal amount due is only Rs.6,97,638/-, and therefore, a direction was sought for refund of the balance amount. But, the petitioner cannot claim such a relief in this Contempt Case and it is always open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the Writ Petition. For the foregoing reasons, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the Writ Petition seeking refund of the balance amount. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th August 2009 KH