Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Savino Del Bene Freight Forwarders ... vs M/S Svil Mines Ltd on 2 May, 2025
$~CO.1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CCP(CO.) 5/2015
M/S SAVINO DEL BENE FREIGHT FORWARDERS (INDIA)
PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate.
versus
M/S SVIL MINES LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kishan Nautiyal &
Abhay Singh, Advocates for R-1, 5
and 7 and ex.directors.
Mr. Manik Dogra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sumeet & Mr. Himanshu
Singhal, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Deepender Hooda, Adv. for R-4.
Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
Rishi Manchanda, SC for OL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 02.05.2025
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the existence of a settlement agreement dated 05.05.2014 executed between the parties, which provided for payment of monies in 18 equated instalments, and which was made a part of the order dated 13.05.2014 in Company Petition No.484/2013, captioned as Savino Del Bene Freight Forwarders (India) Pvt Ltd v. Svil Mines Ltd has not been complied with.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the settlement agreement was signed between the Respondent/Company and the Petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned Counsel for the other Respondents have contended that firstly there is no wilful and deliberate disobedience so as to entail a contempt. Secondly, that these This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:08:24 Respondents were not directors at the relevant time and had resigned from the Company prior thereto. Lastly, that the Company was in financial difficulty and it was subsequently revived. Subsequently, owing to fresh financial issues, the winding up proceedings qua the Company had to be initiated. Thus, it is contended that no case for a contempt is made out.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also seek to rely upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kuehne + Nagel Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Singhee; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8591 to submit that the contempt proceedings cannot be cannot be used for execution of a decree or implementation of an order.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in E. Bapanaiah v. K.S. Raju & Ors.; (2015) 1 SCC 451 and a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lacamps (Sea) Pte Ltd. v. Ashish Gupta & Anr.; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8733 to submit that if an undertaking is given to a Court by a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed was in charge of, was responsible for the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company are deemed to be guilty of contempt.
6. After some submissions, learned Counsel for the parties request for some time to file their brief note of contentions in the matter.
7. At their request, list along with Company Petition No.484/2013 on 20.05.2025.
8. In the meantime, the parties shall file their short note of contentions in the matter, not exceeding two pages each, at least three days before the next date of hearing, along with the compilation of judgments, if any, they wish to rely upon. All judgments sought to be relied upon shall be filed with an This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:08:24 index which also sets out the relevant paragraph numbers and the proposition of law that it sets forth.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J MAY 2, 2025/ ha Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:08:24