Contempt plea quashed by HC as petitioner failed to wait for DGM’s order and wrongly named MD & CEO as contemnors

Case Details: Salem Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy General Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd - [2023] 146 taxmann.com 521 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • R. Suresh Kumar, J.
  • Akhil Bhansali for the Petitioner.
  • P. Raghunathan for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Hon’ble High Court directed DGM of Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI) to consider petitioner’s one time settlement offer/representation and to pass appropriate orders on merit. The said order, according to petitioner, had not been complied with, therefore, the present contempt petition had been filed.

In the said contempt petition, petitioner had arrayed MD and CEO of IFCI as respondent/contemnor and Registry had issued statutory notice to the said officers. It was noted that there were two violations on part of petitioner in contempt petition

One was that, when MD and CEO was not a party in writ petition and direction was issued by High Court only to DGM, name of DGM should have been mentioned in contempt petition. The Array of MD and CEO, as contemnor unnecessarily without any plausible reason was a gross misuse of process of law by petitioner.

Secondly, once a direction was issued to consider representation, petitioner should have waited for orders to be passed by DGM thereafter only, he could have persuaded with contempt petition.

High Court Held

Hon’ble High Court was of view that there has been no wilful contempt on the part of the respondent. Secondly, the array of MD & CEO, as contemnor or alleged contemnor is a gross misuse of process of law by the petitioner and merely because the petitioner was able to get an order, that too, in the admission stage even without hearing the respondents, it will not give premium to the petitioner to array the MD & CEO.

Also, the innocent officers, like the respondent, should not have been troubled in this manner and because of the action adopted by the petitioner by impleading the MD & CEO in the contempt petition as if he was responsible for the orders to be complied with or he had committed contempt or he had violated the orders passed by this Court.

Hon’ble High Court while closing the petition directed petitioner to make good of all the trouble faced by the said officer by way of compensation/cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondent officer.