IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.970 of 2010 Between: M/s.Srusti Infotech, rep.by its Authorised signatory Sri DUS.Valluri ..... Petitioner AND 1.Sri Raja Sekhar Reddy, Chairma, Andhra Bank, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.Krishna Mohan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.B.Adinarayana Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of interim Order, dated 08-04-2010, in WPMP.No.4851 of 2010 in W.P.No.3717 of 2010, by the respondents. I have heard Sri B.Krishna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.3717 of 2010 for a Mandamus to declare the action of the Andhra Bank, whose officials are the respondents herein, in interpolating the borrower document and threatening the petitioner and its partner with serious consequences, as arbitrary and illegal. In WPMP.No.4851 of 2010, filed in the said Writ Petition, this Court vide interim order, dated 08-04-2010, directed the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner in respect of loan account bearing No.110530011000570. In pursuance of Order, dated 19-06-2010, passed in Crl.MP.No.213 of 2010, by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), appointing an Advocate-commissioner to execute the warrant for delivery of possession of the property, belonging to the petitioner and secured to the Andhra Bank, the Advocate-Commissioner broke open the locks of the secured property and delivered the possession thereof to the respondents on 29-06-2010. It is this act, which is alleged to constitute contempt of the aforesaid interim order of this Court passed on 08-04-2010. Voluminous documents have been filed by the petitioner and the case was heard on several occasions in a staggered manner. For the purpose of disposal of this Contempt case, the sole issue that requires to be considered is, whether the respondents had the knowledge of Order, dated 08- 04-2010, passed by this Court in WPMP.No.4851 of 2010 in W.P.No.3717 of 2010 or not. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2- Chief Manager of the Andhra Bank, it is inter alia averred that taking possession of the secured property on 29-06- 2010 was in pursuance of the order passed on 19-06- 2010 by the competent Criminal Court under the provisions of the Act and that if the respondents had knowledge of passing the aforesaid interim order prior to 29-06-2010, they would not have taken possession. Respondent No.2 has specifically denied the receipt of letter, dated 07-05-2010, through which the petitioner, purportedly, communicated a copy of the said interim Order, and also the seizure of the premises by them on 03-05-2010. Respondent No.2 has filed an additional counter- affidavit also wherein it was averred that the respondents came to know about interim Order, dated 08-04-2010, passed by this Court only when they have received letter, dated 15-07-2010, sent by speed post on that day and received by the Bank on 16-07-2010. A copy of the said letter was filed along with the additional counter-affidavit sworn to on 5th September, 2010. The petitioner thereupon obtained a certified copy of the said letter, which is filed in this case. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have tampered with letter, dated 07-05-2010, and substituted 15-07-2010 as the date for 07-05-2010. The learned Counsel also submitted that in order to show that the Branch concerned has received communication, dated 07-05-2010, his client has filed letter, dated 26-07-2010, addressed by the Senior Post Master, Khairatabad, to the petitioner along with the photocopy of the list of the articles, that were delivered to the said Branch on 08-05-2010, which contain signatures of the recipients. Placing reliance on this list, the learned Counsel stated that as many as five communications bearing the date as 07-05-2010 were received by the Branch and therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the respondents have received the letter addressed by the petitioner on 07-05-2010, wherein the factum of passing the aforesaid interim order was communicated by it. In view of the aforesaid material produced by the petitioner, this Court called upon the respondents to file inward register of the Branch. Respondent No.2 has filed an additional affidavit sworn to on 18th October, 2010, wherein it is stated that unlike the Government Departments, the Bank does not maintain any inward register showing the receipt of entire material; that the Bank maintains the register wherein it can record the negotiable/financial instruments only; that the Branch also maintains registers wherein it would record letters received from its Head Office, Zonal Offices and other Government Departments/Corporates and; that in case any letters are received from the customers, the same would be placed in the concerned file of the customer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as the petitioner was able to prove that the Branch has received communication, dated 07-05-2010, on 08-05-2010, it should be presumed that the respondents have had the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court on 08-04-2010. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, by mere failure of the respondents to explain the nature of the material received by the branch on 08-05-2010, no presumption can be drawn, as the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and that unless the petitioner is able to establish with absolute proof that the respondents had specific knowledge of the passing of the interim order by this Court, they cannot be held guilty of a contempt of this Court’s order. In ordinary course, in the face of the evidence produced by the petitioner that the Branch has received communication, dated 07-05-2010, the plea of the petitioner’s Counsel referred to above would have been acceptable. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of receipt of such communication, the respondents cannot be held guilty of deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Court. There is one crucial aspect, which assumes vital importance. While it is the case of the petitioner that it has addressed letter, dated 07-05-2010, to the respondents purporting to bring to their notice the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have come out with the specific plea that they have received communication, which is dated 15-07-2010 and not 07-05-2010. The petitioners have alleged that no such letter, dated 15-07- 2010, was addressed by them and that letter dated, 07- 05-2010, was, obviously, tampered to make it appear that it is dated 15-07-2010. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the signature appearing on letter, 15-07-2010, is genuine one, but his contention is that the date under the signature is tampered. I have carefully compared the two disputed documents. In the purported letter, dated 07-05-2010, the author of the letter has signed below the words “yours sincerely” at the extreme end of the word “sincerely” whereas in letter, dated 15-07-2010, the signature is found almost at the middle portion below the words “yours sincerely”. As the petitioner has admitted the signature contained on letter, dated 15-07-2010, as genuine, there can be no possibility of moving the signature from extreme right side to the middle portion under the words “yours sincerely”. Further more, a perusal of the original letter, dated 15-07-2010, does not show any traces of tampering with the date. However, at the end of the letter, there appear to be some traces of eraser under the signature near the date shown as 15-07-2010. Along with the letter, the respondents produced the speed post receipt, which shows that the letter was received on 15-07-2010 at 17-15 hrs. Significantly, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the signature contained on letter, dated 15-07-2010, is forged. Therefore, in the absence of definite material to show that the respondents have received the purported letter, dated 07-05-2010, it is not possible for this Court to hold that they had the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court and that they have willfully violated the said order by breaking open the locks of the subject property. It needs to be remembered that the breaking open of locks was in pursuance of an order passed by the competent Criminal Court under the provisions of the Act and not on the own volition of the respondents. In my opinion, this fact constitutes a circumstance to hold that the respondents have acted bona fide in taking possession of the property in pursuance of a judicial order. For the above-mentioned reasons, I am unable to hold that the respondents have committed violation of interim Order, dated 08-04-2010, passed by this Court in WPMP.No.4851 of 2010 in W.P.No.3717 of 2010. . The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed and the respondents are discharged from the contempt proceedings. As a sequel to closure of the Contempt Case, Application Nos.621 and 876 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 17th June, 2011 lur