Bombay High Court
Gothic Entertainment vs Kriarj Entertainment Pvt Ltd And 2 Ors on 24 February, 2020
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
1 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
psv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.131 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L.) NO.157 OF 2019
Gothic Entertainment ....Applicant
V/s.
Kriarj Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.463 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L.) NO.157 OF 2019
Gothic Entertainment ....Applicant
V/s.
Kriarj Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.20 OF 2020
-----
Mr.Nitesh Jain with Mr.Atul Jain and Ms.Shambhavi Pandey i/b. Shardul
Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for Applicant.
Mr.J.S. Kini with Ms.Sapna Krishnappa for Respondent No.2.
Mr.Ashish Kamath with Mr.Thomas George, Mr.Sanjeel Kadam i/b.
Kadam & Co. for Vishal Bhardwaj Pictures Pvt. Ltd.
Ms.Nirali Shah i/b. Dua Associates AOR for Noticee No.2 i.e. Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
Mr.Vaibhav Bhure i/b. Jaikar & Partners for Noticee No.6-Abundantia
Entertainment Pvt.Ltd.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2020 &
24th FEBRUARY,2020
P.C.:
1. By an order dated 5 February 2020 a show cause notice was issued by this Court to respondent No.2-Prernaa Arora as to why 2 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for having breached the orders passed by this Court as also an undertaking given to this Court. The order dated 5 February 2020 is required to be noted which reads thus:-
" Learned Counsel for the applicant states that solemn statement as made by respondent No.2 and recorded in the order dated 18 November 2019 and more particularly in paragraphs 1 and 2 stands breached. It is stated that the cheques which were issued in favour of the applicant, are also dishonoured. Further respondent No.2 has also not furnished the details of the balance amounts available in the bank account as directed by this Court.
2. In the circumstances, it is clear that respondent No.2 is in breach of the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, issue show cause notice to respondent No.2-Prernaa Virendrakumar Arora as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for having breached the orders passed by this Court as also the undertaking as given to this Court which was accepted by the said order. Reply to the notice be filed within a period of two weeks from today.
3. On the adjourned date of hearing, respondent No.2- Prernaa Virendrakumar Arora is directed to remain present in the Court. If respondent No.2 fails to remain present in the Court on the adjourned date of hearing, her presence would be secured by following the procedure known to law.
4. Stand over to 18 February 2020 at 03.00 p.m."
2. It appears from the record that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are habitual to breach the several orders passed by this Court. Respondent No.3 is stated to be absconding. There is persistent breach of the several orders passed by this Court which are orders dated 11 February 2019, 14 March 2019, 27 March, 2019, 7 June 2019, 25 June 2019 and 18 November 2019 and the undertaking as recorded by this Court in the 3 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 said order. It appears from the record that the conduct of the respondents and more particularly of respondent No.2 Prernaa V. Arora and respondent No.3 Protima V. Arora in relation to the Court proceedings, has been a matter of consideration and observations of the Court which is also required to be noted as under:-
(i) In an order dated 4 May 2018 passed by this Court (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) in COMIP No.465 of 2018 (Kriarj Entertainment Pvt.Ltd.
Versus J.A.Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) along with connected matters the Court made the following observations:-
"1. I am prima facie satisfied that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in above Petition, have cheated not only the Petitioner but also Guy in the Sky Pictures Private Limited, J.A. Entertainment Private Limited, Pooja Entertainment and Films Limited, Pooja Film Company, Padma Ispat Private Limited, SPE Films Private Limited and others. The Respondent No. 1 Company of whose Respondent Nos. 2 to
4 are the Directors, have also prevented the Court from passing any orders by representing to the Defendants in the above Suits and this Court that they are willing to settle the matter and in fact purportedly settled the said matter by signing the Consent Minutes of Order dated 20 th April, 2018 and thereafter committed breach of the undertakings given to the Court more particularly in paragraphs 8 (a) and 8 (b) of the Consent Terms. In short, not a single term, which was agreed upon under the said Consent Terms, have been complied with by Respondent No. 1.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police under whose jurisdiction Khar Police Station, Mumbai is situated shall appear before this Court on the adjourned date and inform the Court what steps are taken in response to the Complaint dated 26th April, 2018 filed by Guy in the Sky Pictures Private Limited."
(emphasis supplied) 4 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
(ii) In another order dated 10 May 2018 passed by this Court (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) in COMIP No.465 of 2018 (Kriarj Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. Versus J.A.Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) it was observed as under:-
"4. On 4th May, 2018, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 502 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner - Gothic Entertainment against KriArj Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and others, was also on board. On that day, Mr.Zal Andhyrujina, Advocate appearing for Gothic Entertainment submitted that any amounts payable to KriArj by any of the parties, should be brought to Court. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 7th May, 2018."
3. The conduct of the respondents is not different in the present proceedings. In the dispute between the applicant-Gothic Entertainment and respondent No.1-Kriarj Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. of which respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora and respondent No.3 Protima Arora are Directors, before the arbitral tribunal of Mr.Justice S.J. Vazifdar (Former Chief Justice of Haryana High Court), consent terms were entered between the parties. In clause 2(b) of the consent terms it was agreed between the parties that the disputes would stand settled for an amount of Rs.25 corres, however the said amount of Rs.25 crores would be satisfied by the respondents jointly and severally by making the payment of Rs.17 crores namely a sum of Rs.8,74,12,239/- to be paid on or before 30 September 2018, a sum of Rs.5,75,68,405/- to be paid on or before 7 December 2018, a sum of Rs.1 Crore to be paid on or before 30 November 2018 and a sum of Rs.1,50,19,356/- to be paid on or before 31 March 2019. The balance amount of Rs.1 crore and Rs.1,50,19,356/-
5 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 is yet to be realized and as there was default in payment of the said amounts, resulting into the present execution proceedings being filed. There are several orders passed on this execution application.
4. By an order dated 11 February 2019, this Court (K.R. Shriram, J.), passed in commercial chamber summons No.131 of 2019 in terms of prayer clause (a), directed the respondents to make a disclosure in terms of paragraphs 13 and 14 which read thus:-
"13. In addition to what is stated above, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause-(a) is also granted and the same reads as under :-
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents/Judgment Debtors to disclose on affidavit their particulars of assets including the complete particulars of the debtors of the Respondents along with their complete addresses as provided under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") since the subject Award dated 28 July 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal has remained unsatisfied and take necessary steps under Order XXI Rule 41(3) of CPC in case of disobedience of order passed under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of CPC."
14. Judgment Debtors shall annexe, apart from giving details, photo copies of all documents to support the list of assets and also copies of annual returns, profit and loss/income and expenditure accounts and balance-sheet for the period beginning 1.4.2016 until 31.3.2018 and self certified income and expenditure/profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the period 1.4.2018 to 31.1.2019."
6 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
5. A further order came to be passed by this Court (G.S. Patel, J.) on 14 March 2019 wherein in paragraph 6 of the said order, the following directions were made:-
"6. So that there is no misunderstanding, I will require all seven entities including the two who have Affidavits ready, to file and serve detailed Affidavits on or before 20th March 2019 specifically answering the following questions:
(a) Whether they ever had any commercial dealings with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and if so from what date;
(b) The precise nature of those dealings, arrangements or agreements;
(c) Whether there is any amount due as on today by any of these seven entities to Respondent No. 1;
(d) Whether they have, after 28th July 2019 (the date of the Award) remitted any amount at all to Respondent No. 1, and if so the exact amount and the purpose for which that payment was made;
(e) Whether they have at the request of Respondent No. 1 and on its behalf paid any amount at all to any third party after 28th July 2019.
7. Mr.Lohia for Essel protests. He says he needs more time. Essel and Kriaraj may have had dealings going back years and years, he says. That matters not in the least. Mr Lohia misunderstands. I do not want copies of all agreements, memoranda, term sheets and all the usual commercial paper stretching back eons to the dawn of time. I need an accurate description of those past dealings. If any additional documentation is needed, it will be summoned later. The emphasis is on indebtedness of the Garnishees to Kriraj; whether they owe any money to Kriaraj; whether they have paid anything to Kriaraj or on its behalf to anyone else since the Award, and if so how much, when and for what reason. In any case, Mr. Lohia has a reputation to maintain of being uncommonly assiduous and determinedly sedulous. Some lucubration will not discomfit him in the least."
6. On 27 March 2019 another order came to be passed in regard to the disclosure which would be required to be made in regard to movable 7 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 and immovable assets. As respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora-judgment debtor was incarcerated at Byculla Jail, Mumbai and observing that third judgment debtor Protima Arora was absconding, it was directed that disclosure be made by respondent No.2- Prernaa Arora.
7. There are further orders dated 7 June 2019 passed by this Court (A.K. Menon, J.) whereby within two weeks of the said order disclosure affidavit was directed to be placed on record. Thereafter by an order dated 25 June 2019 passed by this Court (R.I. Chagla, J.) again it was observed that disclosure affidavit was not filed and the same be filed within two weeks from the date of the said order. Respondent No.2 filed certain affidavits however as contended by the applicants these affidavits did not make an appropriate disclosure. It is also observed that there are certain amounts which were recoverable by respondent No.1 from some of the garnishees this was seriously disputed by the garnishees.
8. It can also be seen from the orders dated 7 June 2019, 13 September 2019, 19 September 2019 that respondent No.2 was lodged in Byculla Jail at Mumbai in criminal reports which were filed by some other creditors/complainants.
8 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
9. In regard to the said criminal proceedings, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that on one hand the respondents persisted with their default in the present proceedings while on the other hand respondent Nos.2 and 3 to avail bail in the said proceedings entered into a "memorandum of understanding" dated 30 August 2019 with the complainant in the said criminal case and agreed to make substantial payments. A copy of the minutes arrived between the parties, subject matter of criminal bail application No.1648 of 2019 and the said memorandum of understanding dated 30 August 2019 are placed on record. Also order dated 3 May 2019 passed on Criminal Bail Application No.1224 of 2019 along with connected application passed by this Court (A.S. Gadkari, J.) and a further order dated 16 September 2019 passed on Bail Application No.1648 of 2019 passed by this Court (Revati Mohite Dere, J.) are placed on record.
10. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointing out the orders, would contend that respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora thus has intentionally breached several orders passed by this Court and it is also abundantly clear from the criminal proceedings that she had sufficient funds/amounts to be paid to the applicant in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, however deliberately the respondents avoided to make payments and comply with the successive orders passed by this 9 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 Court, even of disclosure. It is hence submitted that this is a clear case where the Court apart from an action being taken under the Contempt of Courts Act also needs to take action against Respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora under Order XXI Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. Mr.Nitesh Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the order dated 4 November 2019 wherein the conduct of respondent No.2 was commented being noticed by this Court. On 4 November 2019 the Court passed the following order:-
" Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 shall on affidavit place on record, Memorandum of Understanding which is stated to be entered into between respondent No.2 and third party which is subject matter of the order passed by this Court in Bail Application No.1648 of 2019 on 16 September 2019.
2. The contention as urged on behalf of the applicant- claimant is that ex-facie there is a perjury committed by respondent No.2 as it is clear from the order dated 16 September 2019 passed by this Court that respondent No.2 has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the claims of third party of Rs.18 Crores and on the other hand, there are amounts outstanding being the subject matter of the present proceedings.
3. All these issues are required to be considered on the adjourned date of hearing.
4. In the meantime, respondent No.2 is permitted to file reply affidavit, as also the applicants are permitted to file an additional affidavit, if they so desire.
5. It is stated that the Garnishees affidavits are already on record as also there is reply of the claimants to those affidavits.
6. Respondent No.2 is directed to remain present in the Court on the adjourned date of hearing.
10 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
7. Accordingly, stand over to 11 November 2019."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Even though the above orders were passed, no reply affidavit was filed as recorded in the further order dated 11 November 2019 which reads thus:-
"1. The order dated 4th November, 2019 passed by this Court has not been complied by the respondent no.2, as reply-affidavit is not placed on record. Now Mr. Kini appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and states that affidavit as directed by this Court would be filed by tomorrow and copy of the same would also be served on the other side. Accordingly, stand over to 18th November, 2019. Respondent no.2 is directed to remain present in the Court, on the adjourned date."
13. On 18 November 2019 this Court passed the following order accepting an undertaking of respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora to make payments as set out in the affidavit:-
" Mr. Kini, learned counsel for the judgment debtor has tendered an affidavit of Prernaa Virendrakumar Arora, respondent no. 2 interalia undertaking that in full and final settlement of the amounts due and payable under the decree, an amount of Rs. 3 crores is agreed to be accepted by the applicant/judgment creditor and the said amount will be paid to the applicant/judgment creditor in the manner as set out in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. The payment is undertaken to be made in five installments and the post dated cheques to that effect drawn from Account no. 20100016989 Indusind Bank, Andheri (E) branch are sought to be offered, the details of which are also being set out. The post-dated cheques are handed over to the learned counsel for the applicant/judgment creditor during the course of hearing.
2. Mr. Kini, learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that it is an undertaking of the judgment debtor to make payment of the installments as aforesaid and all the cheques which are issued will be honoured and this is an 11 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 undertaking to the Court in addition to what has been undertaken in the affidavit tendered today. The undertaking made on behalf of the judgment debtor and statement made by Kini is accepted.
3. By an order dated 11 February 2019, the aforesaid bank account is freezed. It is required to be activated so that the judgment debtor can deposit the funds and cheques which are drawn in favour of the applicant/judgment creditors can be encashed. Accordingly, the said account is defreezed and activated. The judgment debtors are permitted to operate the said account to make payment to the applicant/judgment creditor as also some other parties.
4. Considering the facts of the case, as already judgment debtors were in breach of the orders passed by this Court, it would be appropriate that the judgment debtors would forward a communication through their advocate to the advocates of the applicants of the balance amounts available in the said bank account as on 25 th day of every month in respect of which post-dated cheques are issued. This communication should reach the advocate for the applicant/judgment creditor not later than 25 th day of every month. Considering the undertaking as made to the Court by the judgment debtor and handing over the post dated cheques, learned counsel for the applicant/judgment creditor would submit that the hearing of these proceedings be adjourned to 5 February 2020. The request is reasonable.
5. Mr. Kamat, learned counsel for the garnishee submits that his clients be dropped from the proceedings. However, at this stage of proceedings and as the parties intend to resolve the issues, I do not intend to adjudicate on any issues pertaining to the garnishee. If the need so arises, the garnishee's contentions would be considered on the adjourned date of hearing. As of today, as no order is passed against the garnishee, there is no prejudice caused to the garnishees. All contentions of the garnishee and of the parties in that regard are expres0sly kept open.
6. Accordingly stand over to 5 February 2020. Liberty to apply."
What is significant is that an unconditional undertaking came to be given by respondent No.2-Prernaa Arora to this Court and as recorded in the above order dated 18 November 2019. The undertaking is that in full and final settlement of the amounts due and payable under the 12 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 decree, an amount of Rs. 3 crores would be paid to the applicant. This was agreed and accepted by the applicant/judgment creditor and the said amount will be paid to the applicant/judgment creditor in the manner as set out in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora dated 16 November 2019 filed in Commercial Chamber Summons No.463 of 2019.
14. Thereafter on 5 February 2020 learned Counsel for the applicant had brought to the attention of the Court the breach of solemn statement as made by respondent No.2 and recorded in the order dated 18 November 2019 as recorded in paragraph 1 and 2 of the said order. It is also stated that the cheques which were issued in favour of the applicant, stood dishonoured. Further respondent No.2 also did not furnish the details of the balance amounts available in the bank account as directed by this Court. Considering the said conduct and gross breach of the said order dated 18 November 2019 passed by this Court, this Court by an order dated 5 February 2020 (supra) issued show cause notice to respondent No.2-Prernaa Arora calling upon respondent no.2 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against her for having committed contempt of the said orders passed by the Court by violating an undertaking given to this Court which was accepted by the Court in the said order.
13 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
15. It is required to be noted that respondent no.2 did not file disclosure affidavit as directed by the orders passed by this Court, and noted above. Further reply affidavit is not filed to the show casue notice as directed. It was not the case that respondent No.2 was not represented. It was not the case that respondent No.2 was not aware of the present proceedings. In fact, when the Court recorded a solemn statement of respondent No.2 on 18 November 2019 as made by Mr.Kini, her Counsel. Once a statement is made to the Court and accepted as an undertaking to the Court, breach of such undertaking would amount to contempt of Court leading to a consequence of such breach as per law. Respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora appears to be well versed in regard to the Court proceedings as also is a person active in business activities. She already faces several proceedings including of cheating. She was clearly aware of the consequences of breach of the Court Orders.
16. On the above backdrop this Court passed an order dated 18 February 2020 noting that neither the order dated 18 November 2019 nor the earlier orders were complied by respondent no.2. Respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora was accordingly directed to remain present so that further orders would be passed. The following order was passed by the Court on 18 February 2020:-
14 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 "1. Neither the earlier orders as noted in the order dated 18 November 2019 are complied nor the further order dated 5 February 2020 passed by the Court while issuing contempt notice has been complied. Reply affidavit has also not been filed. Also contemner - Prerana Virendrakumar Arora is not present in the Court as clearly directed in paragraph 3 of the said order. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has tendered a photocopy of a medical certificate dated 18 February 2020 of "Sheth Poonamchand Vithaldas Doshi Hospital", Poonam Nagar, Shanti Park, Opposite Sector 6/7, Mira Road (East), Thane-401107, which records that respondent no.2 is suffering from Acute Otitis Media.
2. Relying on this medical certificate appears to be a frivolous attempt not to comply the binding orders passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out that respondent no.2 is the resident of Goregaon, however, the certificate is obtained from the Doctor at Thane and who is also not a ENT specialist. There is thus grave doubt about this medical certificate. In my opinion non compliance of the successive orders passed by this Court amount to an aggravated contempt. Only as an indulgence, the proceedings are adjourned to 20 February 2020, (High On Board). The respondent no.2 is directed to remain present and/or comply with the orders passed by this Court in the execution proceedings.
3. It is clarified that on the adjourned date of hearing, the parties would be heard on the contempt notice as also the principal proceedings and appropriate orders would be passed."
17. I have extensively heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly there is no reply to the show cause notice. Today Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for respondents as if respondent no.2 is obliging the Court, intended to place on record a bulky affidavit stated to be an affidavit of disclosure. A serious objection to this approach on the part of the respondents is taken by learned Counsel for the applicant. He submits that tendering such affidavit in no manner would absolve respondent No.2 from breach of the undertaking given to the Court. He 15 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 would submit that there are tactics on the part of respondent No.2 to avoid the show cause notice and the consequence flowing therefrom.
18. In my opinion, there is much substance in the contention as urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Having persistently breached the orders of this Court, an affidavit being thrown at the Court at the last minute would not suffice either compliance of the orders passed by this Court in a manner known to law and or would be any justification for this Court to post-pone today's hearing on the serious background as noted above.
19. There can be no two opinions that respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora has any regard for either the process of law or for the orders passed by this Court. The approach of respondent No.2 is to consistently undermine the authority of the Court and the process of law. There is absolutely no remorse on the part of respondent No.2 in not complying the orders passed by this Court. It is not so easy for any litigant to give a solemn undertaking to the Court, knowing well that such undertakings are not merely paper undertakings not to be complied. This is what happened in the present case. The undertaking as made to the Court by respondent No.2 and recorded in the order dated 18 November 2019 is rendered as a paper undertaking. In fact, the whole attempt of respondent No.2 was to give an undertaking with an intention to breach 16 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 the same. It was an attempt to mislead the Court and the applicant by making false assurances of payment. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law apart from being a gross contempt of the orders passed by this Court. It can be understood of a prudent litigant that in case there are chances of any breach of the undertaking as given to the Court, an opportunity is always available to approach the Court before-hand and seek modification for justifiable reasons. In the present case the conduct of respondent no.2 was brazen. She let the undertaking to be breached. The cheques issued also stood dishonoured. Further she did not even bother to reply to the show cause notice issued by the Court, on initiation of contempt proceeding. Respondent no.2 belongs to the category of a litigant who was routinely disrespectful to the orders passed by the Court and with impunity.
20. In the above circumstances, the mandate in law has to operate. An action is required to be taken against respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora under the Contempt of Courts Act for having persistently and willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. There is a clear mandate not only under the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution to take action against respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora. In the present case there is also the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, are attracted.
17 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194
21. The contemptuous actions on the part of respondent no.2-Prernaa Arora also amount to substantial interference by respondent no.2 in the due course of administration of justice requiring this Court to exercise the powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution. There is a clear attempt on the part of respondent no.2 to undermine the authority of law.
22. In the above circumstances, I hold that respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora is guilty of having willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court as noted above, and more particularly of the order dated 18 November 2019 and is guilty of Contempt of Court. Respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora is accordingly sentenced to be detained in civil prison for a period of six (6) months. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender herself before the Officer Incharge, Azad Maidan Police Station on 27 February 2020 at 11.00 a.m. The contempt notice is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
23. At this stage, just before I was about to rise for the lunch recess, I asked Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 whether his client is present in the compliance of the orders of this Court. Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 made a statement that she was present in the Court throughout, although she was not seen by any of the counsel appearing for the parties. The court waited for her for quite some time 18 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 (upto 2.10 p.m.). Mr.Kini states that she may have gone out of the Court room for some reason. In this situation, while rising for the lunch recess Mr.Kini was requested to keep respondent No.2 present at 03.00 p.m. when the Court would resume proceedings.
24. At 03.00 p.m. Mr.Kini states that during the recess he had instructed respondent no.2 to remain present in the Court at 3 p.m., however, she is not present. Mr.Kini would now agree that the conduct of respondent No.2 is most objectionable not only showing utter disregard and neglect for the orders passed by the Court but even to brazenly defy her counsel's instructions to her to remain present in the Court at 03.00 p.m., which was in compliance of the orders passed by the Court.
25. The Court however on Mr.Kini's request waited for respondent No.2 to appear and almost it was 03.10 p.m. till when respondent No.2 did not appear and/or had refused to remain present. At 03.20 p.m. after the Court waited for sufficient time, Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 states that respondent No.2 is not responding to his telephone calls. Certainly this is an aggravated contempt by respondent no.2 Prernaa Arora interalia of the order dated 18 February 2020 passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant in these circumstances would submit that it would be appropriate that respondent No.2 is taken 19 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 into custody today itself. It appears that she has absconded from the Court premises. Respondent no.3 is already absconding for quite some time. They appear to be quite habitual and well versed to avoid the process of law. All this is required to be recorded for two fold reasons. Firstly that this would show the scant regard of respondent No.2 to not only the process of law but the brazen defiance to the orders of the Court. Secondly even in the proceedings of the show cause notice, respondent No.2 has least regard to the compliance of the orders expected from a litigant that too in a contempt proceedings. Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is also surprised and would have no justification for the conduct on the part of respondent No.2. Mr.Kini is right in contending that it is left to the Court now in these circumstances even to pass immediate stringent orders and he cannot have any say in this regard.
26. Although today's conduct of respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora in fact would not justify any concession to be made by the Court. Be that as it may, in my opinion, it is in the interest of justice that the order directing respondent No.2 to surrender herself on 27 February 2020 would meet the ends of justice.
27. In the above circumstances, it would also be necessary to issue a non-bailable warrant for arrest of respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora to be 20 906-chscd 131-19 in comexl 157-194 executed in the event respondent No.2 Prernaa Arora does not surrender herself before the Officer-in-charge of Azad Maidan Police Station as directed. The warrant be immediately forwarded to the concerned police station for necessary compliance.
Date:-24 February 2020 . As it has taken sometime to transcribe the above order and made available to the parties, it is necessary that the time for respondent no.2 to surrender before the Officer-in-Charge, Azad Maidan Police Station is extended upto 2 March 2020. The non-bailable warrant be accordingly issued against respondent no.2 to be arrested and taken in custody in the event if she does not surrender before the Officer-in-Charge, Azad Maidan Police Station on 2 March 2020 at 11 a.m. Ordered accordingly.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] Digitally signed by Prajakta Prajakta S. Vartak S. Date:
Vartak 2020.02.24
20:51:38
+0530