Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Haryana State Co-Op Supply And ... vs Juggilal Kamalapat Jute Mills Company ... on 8 May, 2019
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4799-4800 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2221-2222/2017)
THE HARYANA STATE CO-OP. SUPPLY
AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED (HAFED) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS
COMPANY LTD & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11.11.2016 in C.C. No. 70 of 2016 and C.C. No. 209 of 2015 passed by the High Court at Calcutta. The order reads thus:
“The Court:- Rs. 92,73,824/- were returned by the Government of India DG(S&D) to HAFED in respect of 446 allegedly defective bales consisting of 2,23,440 bags. The petitioners’ grievance is that the bags were to be returned to them but in spite of several orders, they have not been so returned. It is submitted on behalf of HAFED that the bags are under seizure by the police authorities in Haryana.Signature Not Verified This controversy has to be resolved in this Contempt Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.05.21
proceedings.14:41:14 IST
Reason: To avoid aggravation of contempt, I appoint Mr. Robi Prasad Mookerji, Advocate Bar Library Club and Mr. Rajarshi Raj Choudhury, Advocate of Bar Association Room No.2 as Joint Receivers to immediately take physical possession of these bags in the presence of 2 HAFED, Police and the petitioners, to transfer them to a separate godown and hold them in their custody at the cost of the petitioners.
The Joint Receivers will be paid an initial remuneration of 1200 G.Ms. each by the petitioners. He will file a report in this Court by 7th December, 2016 with copies serve upon all the appearing parties. List this application for consideration on 9th December, 2016.
The Director General of Police, Haryana and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District will ensure police help to the joint Receivers to implement this order.
(I.P. Mukerji, J.) 11.11.2016” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it is doubtful as to whether such a mandatory direction could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction merely because of some statement made before the Court on an earlier occasion, by the private parties, in civil proceedings pending between them inter se, on 08.05.2015.
It is not in dispute that the defective bales referred to in the impugned order are the subject matter of criminal action pending at Ambala (Haryana) bearing FIR being No.115 of 2014 and which came to be seized by the local police as crime property.
If at all the High Court intended to issue any direction, which, inevitably, would result in release of the crime property, that could have been done only after giving notice to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station and upon considering his objections, if any. In any case, 3 without a formal order for the release of crime property by the concerned trial (criminal) court, it would not be open to issue such directions. For, the crime property is required to be retained as evidence during the pendency of criminal trial. Notably, the trial of the criminal case is pending in a Court outside the State of West Bengal.
We take notice of the fact that a somewhat similar reason has been noted by the same learned Judge who had passed the impugned order, in his previous order dated 09.04.2015. That consideration ought to have weighed with the learned Judge before passing the impugned order. We say no more. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and relegating the parties before the High Court to proceed with the hearing of Contempt Petition on its own merits and in accordance with law. We have been informed that pursuant to the impugned order, the Court receiver had taken charge of the subject goods and removed the same to a location in Punjab and has kept the same in the custody of the Court receiver. That will have to be brought back in terms of this order so as to restore the position as it was before the passing of the impugned order, which means that the subject goods will have to be taken back and kept in the custody of the concerned 4 Criminal Court in the State of Haryana and abide by the directions to be passed by that Court, if and when required as per law.
The appeals are allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR) …...................J (AJAY RASTOGI) New Delhi May 08, 2019 5 ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5193- 5194/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11- 2016 in CCN No. 209/2015 11-11-2016 in CCN No. 70/2016 passed by the High Court At Calcutta) J.K. JUTE MILL MAZDOOR EKTA UNION Petitioner(s) VERSUS JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS COMPANY LTD & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA 46085/2017- Vacating Stay) WITH SLP(C) No. 2221-2222/2017 (XVI) Date : 08-05-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv.
Mr. B. Purushothama Reddy, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Omung Raj Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Devik Singh, Adv.
Mr. Lakshay Juneja, Adv.
Ms. Lalitha Kaushi, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kuttiala, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Visen, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kohli, Adv.6
Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR Mr. S. Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanium, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 2221-2222/2017 Leave granted.
The Civil appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SLP (C) 5193-5194/2017 In view of order passed in SLP(C) No. 2221-2222 of 2017 by this Court today, nothing survives for consideration in these Special Leave Petitions.
These Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly, leaving all available contentions of the parties open.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)