Delhi District Court
Syndicate Bank vs . Ms. Loveleena (India) on 20 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL,
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID No.02401C0477622012
M. No.-44/2012
Syndicate Bank Vs. Ms. Loveleena (India)
Date of institution of the application : 09.06.2011
Date of reserving order : 23.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2014
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the application u/s 2, 10, 12 of the Contempt of Court Act r.w.s. 151 CPC and u/s 340 Cr.P.C. & u/s 95 of CPC filed on behalf of the application Shri J. C. Popli.
2. The brief necessary facts for disposal of the present contempt application as per the application are herein under:-
The plaintiff/DH bank had filed the case against the defendant M/s. Loveleena (India). Decree was passed in favour of the bank. Thereafter, DH filed the false affidavit of Mr. Sriniwasan and Mr. S. C. Dass and accordingly under the misguidance and misrepresentation of the facts, this court was pleased to attach the property bearing no.H-236, IIIrd Floor, DDA Flats, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Being aggrieved from the said attachment, the applicant preferred his objections under order 21 Rule 58 r.w.s 95 & 151 CPC. Thereafter, the court decided the objections and attachment order of property was withdrawn. The grievance of the applicant is that Mr. V. Sriniwasan and Shri S. C. Dass made false statement of this property belonging to JD no.3 whereas they were aware that Shri J. C. Popli is the absolute and sole owner of the suit property. In prayer clause, the applicant has prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings and compensation to the applicant in view of the section 95 of CPC.
4. In reply filed by the DH bank, it was submitted that this application is abuse to process of law. The applicant is the husband of Smt. C. R. Popli/JD no.3. Shri J. C. Popli, who in fact is the beneficiary and pursuing all the litigations in the name of his wife Smt. C. R. Popli, instead of making the payment of the DH, is indulging himself in various kinds of false allegations against the bank. One of such litigation filed by him is in the name of Loveleena (India) or in the name of his wife. Regular first appeal has already been decided against them. Shri J. C. Popli and his wife have colluded with each other in order to pressurize the DH bank to withdraw the litigation against them. Officers/officials of the bank have no personal interest and have been acting bonafidely for the protection of the interest of the Nationalized DH bank. Affidavit was filed by the employees under the bonafide belief, which is lying with the DH. The applicant, in order to create the false evidence, did not supply the copy of the title deeds of the property in question to the officials of the DH bank at that relevant time with intention to implicate the officers of DH bank in a deceitful manner and to pressurize them. Shri J. C. Popli/applicant has been doing everything on behalf of Smt. C. R. Popli.
5. Rejoinder filed by the applicant wherein he has controverted the allegations as made in the reply to his objections and further re-affirmed the facts as mentioned in his objections.
6. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the file reveals that the present suit was filed by the bank.
There is no allegation of personal enmity against the bank officials. It is a matter of common knowledge that suits on behalf of the bank involve matters of National interest and public money. For initiation of contempt proceedings, the intention of wrong doer is important. There is distinction between the exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. From the perusal of the record, no misuse of power in bad faith is apparent. After the attachment order , the objections were filed and the same were disposed of by Ld. Predecessor of the court and the Ld. Predecessor also did not find any fraud in the attachment order and hence did not pass any order u/s 95 of CPC for compensation to the applicant. It is apparent that the applicant is misusing the process of law by filing such frivolous application. Hence, the contempt application is dismissed. As decree has already been transfered from this court, the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) on 20.02.2014 SCJ/RC(WEST) / DELHI