Case: Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (Bms) Etc Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Etc

2. The appellants are the petitioners/applicants before the learned Single Judge in an application filed by them for taking appropriate action against the respondents herein for violating the order dated 23.02.2011. According to the appellants, the entire money paid by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI for short) on account of acquisition of the companys land, should have been deposited with the High Court, in the true spirit of the order dated 23.02.2011. To the extent relevant, for the purpose of the present case, it may be noted that of the total amount due to the company, the NHAI issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 94.16 crores approximately in favour of the Registrar of the High Court after deducting an amount of Rs. 10,55,60,331/- by way of tax deducted at source (TDS for short). Thereafter, the company filed its income-tax return for the assessment year 2013-2014 and claimed and received refund of the entire amount covered by the TDS, after deducting the tax. According to the respondents, the amount was utilised for various purposes in connection with the affairs of the company. It is the stand of the respondents that the direction to deposit the amount with the High Court was given to the NHAI, and in having claimed, received and utilised the refund received from the Income-Tax Department, there is no violation of the order dated 23.02.2011.3. Learned Single Judge was prima facie of the opinion that there was deliberate violation of the order dated 23.02.2011, and therefore, issued Rule to the respondents, returnable in six weeks, vide order dated 26.06.2015. There was also a direction that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company without securing the afore-mentioned amount of Rs. 10,55,60,331/-.4. Aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench leading to the impugned order.5. The Division Bench, in the impugned order, took the view that the learned Single Judge should not have passed an order affecting the operation of bank accounts, and therefore, to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge was vacated. And thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
6. It may specifically be noted that the Division Bench has not interfered with the Rule issued to the respondents in the proceedings initiated under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the alleged violation of the order dated 23.02.2011. The Division Bench only vacated the order regarding operation of the bank accounts of the company without securing the amount of rupees ten crores and odd.12. Thus, it may be noted that this Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which in turn refused the prayer for withdrawal of the deposit lying with the Court.As we have already clarified, the Division Bench, in the impugned order, has not interfered with the Rule issued in the contempt proceedings. The interference is only to the extent of direction to secure the TDS amount Rs. 10,55,60,331/-.Though Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others, (2014) 3 SCC 373 , and contended that the courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted,in the background which we have explained above, we find it difficult to appreciate the submission. This Court, in the judgment referred to above, in paragraph-19, has clarified that the directions which are explicit in the judgment or "are plainly self-evident" can be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Prima facie, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has taken note only of the plainly self-evident facts while issuing the Rule and order regarding securing the amounts which the respondents received by way of refund from the Income-Tax Department and utilized.18. It may be seen that the order dated 23.02.2011 regarding the deposit in court was passed to secure the entire compensation from the NHAI. The court was concerned about the money to be received from the NHAI towards the compensation and appropriately protecting the same from being used by the company. Even the respondents herein had "... no objection to money being protected...". The court had, in fact, declined the request made by the respondents ... "to receive the compensation and to keep the same in fixed deposit subject to further orders of the court". The Official Liquidator was of the view that ... "the money should be deposited with the Registrar, Original Side".19. After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge, formed the opinion that ... "the submission made on behalf of the Official Liquidator is also in conformity with the submission made by Mr. S.N. Mitra, who has largest support of the parties before me (the court)". Hence, the learned Single Judge made it clear that "In that view of the matter, the National Highway Authority was restrained from making any payment on account of compensation to the company in liquidation except by way of an account payee cheque to the Registrar, Original Side of the High Court". Therefore, it is fairly clear that the court had in mind the entire compensation paid by the NHAI in respect of the land acquired by them. Since the NHAI was bound to deduct TDS, an amount of Rs. 10,55,60,331/- was paid to the Income-Tax Department. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the said amount formed part of the compensation. What the court in its order dated 23.02.2011 was requested and the court intended too was to protect the compensation amount. Merely because it goes through the Income-Tax Department, the same does not cease to be part of compensation. Even the respondents herein had submitted before the court at the time of passing the order dated 23.02.2011 that the compensation amount needed to be protected and they were willing to protect it subject to the order of the court. Therefore, the respondents, while handling of the compensation amount, had to seek orders from the court; going by the way they understood the proceedings.20. In that background of the case, we are of the view that the respondents should not have appropriated the refund they received from the Income-Tax Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund. The problem is in utilising the refund received. The refund they received is actually the compensation in respect of the land acquired from the company and it is that amount which the court wanted to protect by its order dated 23.02.2011. Hence, prima facie, we are of the view that the appropriation made by the respondents of the refund amount they received from the Income-Tax Department was in violation of the order dated 23.02.2011. It appears, for that reason only, even the Division Bench declined to disturb the Rule in the contempt proceedings issued against respondents. However, the Division Bench is wholly wrong in entering a finding that there is no violation of the order dated 23.02.2011 in utilising the refund. No doubt, had the refund and subsequent appropriation been of any amount other than the compensation, there would not have been any contempt at all.21. Unfortunately, the Division Bench, in the impugned order, failed to recapitulate the background of the order dated 23.02.2011 and its own earlier orders with regard to the refusal for withdrawal by the respondents of the compensation deposited in court. Even if there be pressing needs, there could not have been any utilisation of the compensation amount without leave of the court. We find that the Division Bench has taken note of the expenditure made by the respondents of the amount they received.It may be seen that the respondents have been managing the affairs of the company for a few years despite the futile attempts made by them to withdraw the compensation lying in deposit in court.24. As held by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 SCC 622 , and going a step further, the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the orders. In that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.25. In the background as above of the case, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge.26. We make it clear that any observations made by us are only for the purpose of this order and shall not have any bearing on the consideration by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings.