Supreme Court of India

M/S PACKRAFT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR V.S. MANNversusU.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 726
Decided: 13 November 1995
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

A violation of Supreme Court law under Article 141 is not punishable as contempt; the correct remedy is judicial review.

Summary

Mis Packraft (India) Pvt Ltd, through its director, filed a contempt petition against the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation alleging that the corporation sold the appellant's defaulter property in breach of the Supreme Court's guidelines laid down in Mahesh Chandra's case. The petition claimed wilful disobedience of that law and sought contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the guidelines constitute law under Article 141 and are binding, but any infraction must be remedied by judicial review, not by contempt of court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition, directing the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The decision reaffirmed that contempt is not the correct avenue for correcting violations of Supreme Court precedent.

Issues considered

Whether a breach of Supreme Court guidelines on the sale of a defaulter's property can constitute contempt of court
Whether the appropriate remedy for such a breach is contempt proceedings or judicial review

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 141

Subjects

contempt of courtjudicial reviewArticle 141Supreme Court precedentsale of defaulter's propertyfinancial corporationremedy

Judgment

       MIS PACKRAFf (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS                                 A
                  DIRECTOR V.S. MANN
                                      v.
       U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

                          NOVEMBER 13, 1995
                                                                                  B
            [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

      Contempt of Court

       Law laid down by Supreme Cowt-ls law underA1ticle 141-Action in            C
violation of law laid down-Held appropriate remedy is judicial review and
not contempt proceedings.

      This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the proper-
ties of the appellant-defaulter were brought to sale by the respon-
dent-Financial Corporation in violation of the guidelines laid down by D
this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case*.

      Dismissing the petition, this Court

      HELD : The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case is
the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the    E
law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid
down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial
review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court. [180-C]

      *Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, [1993] 2 SCC 279, referred to.                     F
      CONTEMPT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995.

                                      In

      Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990.                                              G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.90 of the Allahabad High
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 13916 of 1987.

      Mahavir Singh, M.S. Dahiya, Ms. Kusum Singh and B.S. More for
the Petitioner.                                                                   H
                                     179
    180                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, (1993] 2 SCC 279 has laid
    down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to
    sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of
    specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not
B   been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful
    disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents
    rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We
    are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.

c is the The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra)
         law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound
    by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the
    law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by
    a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.

D         Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made
    by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for
    contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate
    remedy according to law.

          The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
E
    T.N.A.                                                   Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search