E-— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ^ PETITIONER CONTMEPT CASE (ON0.178/2010 Anil Agarwal, son of Shri Radhe Shyam Agarwal, aged 42, Proprietor: M/s Shyam Rice & Parboling Unit, Gandhi Chowk, Neora Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 Versus Mr. K.V.Kamath, Chairman, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. Sridar lyengar, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. Homi R Khusrokhan, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Dr. Anup K. Pujari, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. M.S. Ramachandra, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Dr. Tushaar Shah, Director ICICI BankLtd. Mr. M.K. Sharma, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. V. Sridhar, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. V. Prem Watsa, Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Ms. Chanda D Kochar, Managing Director & CEO, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. N.S. Kannan, Executive Director & C.E.O, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. K. Ramkumar, Executive Director, ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr. Rajiv Sabharwal, Executive Director & C.E.O., ICICI Bank Ltd. Add. 1 to 13 C/o M/s. ICICI Bank B.K.C. Bandra (E) Mumbai (SM) Mr. Amit Deshpandey, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, 2nd Floor, RNAG Gore Parisar, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Mr. Amit Tiwari, Employee of ICICI Bank, 2nd Floor, RNAG Gore Parisar, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERSECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT Appearance : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Counsel forthe petitioner. Contempt Case (C) No. 178/2010 ^3> ^te^-^ ORAL ORDER (11.08.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Anil Agarwal has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5040/2009. The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs : "10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:- a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner from the respondent authorities for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue quashing the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 (Annexure P-5) by the respondent bank and/or quashing the proceeding initiated by the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Raipur at the instance of respondent No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. c. Cost of the proceedings. d. Any other relief as this Hon'bte Court may be pleased to grant." This Court while hearing the above writ petition passed the following order on 22.06.2010 : "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any reply to the objection made by the petitioner on notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner being the proprietor of the firm is borrower and the alleged reply to the notice, has been sent to one Sitaram Agrawal, who is not the proprietor of the firm, but guarantor. It is necessary to verify the factual position particularly when it appears that no notice has been issued to the petitioner. One week time is granted to respondent No.1 to \ file photocopy of the original documents indicating the fact of loan as well as the name ofthe borrowers and guarantors etc. A" ^ .-& 1 ".y ,--• '^,^.^^^' I shyna Contempt Case fC) No. 178/2010 Since the matter is sub-judice, no further action shall be taken in respect of the subject matter of the petition, till the nextdate ofhearing." It appears that after the order dated 22.06.2010, a cheque dated 26.05.2010, whichwas earlier deposited by the petitioner, was sent for encashment and a report was sent by the Banker that the account of the petitioner was already closed on 28.06.2010 and therefore, the cheque was returned. Thereafter, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Tiwari, an Advocate engaged by the IGICI Bank, gave a notice to the petitioner in subject of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 21st of July 2010 (Annexure C-3). The entire argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid notice issued to the petitioner on the behest of the Bank authorities was contempt of the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5040/2009. 1 am unable to accept the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The text of the order dated 22.06.2008 would show that it was an order in the subject matter of a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in that context, the writ court has passed the order that since the matter was sub-judice, no further action shall be taken in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition till the next date of hearing. Sending of the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of cheque bounce was not at all related to the subject matter of the writ petition and it was a separate cause of action pertaining to a cheque dated 26.05.2010, which was admittedly issued by the petitioner prior to passing of the said order. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha /\ Judge