MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN AND ORS.versusTHE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS.

A                  MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN AND ORS.
                                          v.
          THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORs.

                                  AUGUST 2, 2007

B                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)


          Contempt of Court-Application by creditors for appointment ofreceiver
    and for attachment of properties of Company-Order for attachment of
C   properties by trial court-Violation of-During pendency of appeal before
    Supreme Court, debtors willing to dispose off the properties to meet the
    demand of creditors-Hence, the Court directed.to work out the modalities
    to meet dues of creditors and discharge the liabilities without entering into
    the issue of commission of contempt.

D.        Many persons subscribed to the various fixed Deposits and saving
    schemes started by a company. On the date of maturity, the certificates issued
    were not honoured. Appellants-investors lodged FIR. They filed application
    for appointment of receiver and for attachment of the properties. Application
    was allowed. Magistrate issued public notice directing attachment of
    properties. However, orders for attachment were violated. Appellants filed
E   Revision Petition which was dismissed. Appellants then filed application. High
    Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal.

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

           HELD: It was submitted by the appellants that after having violated
F   various orders passed, one of the non-official respondents has now come to
    dispose off the properties to meet the demands of creditors and to wipe out
    the liabilities. Ultimately, t_he people who are the creditors have to get back
    their money. Without entering into the matters relating to the commission of
    contempt, it would be appropriate for the concerned Court to work out the
G   details and the modalities as to how the properties could be sold to get the
    highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities could be
    discharged. (Para 6) (778-A, B, q

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of

H                                        776
i
            MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [PASAYAT, J.)   777

    2Wl.                                                                                        A
         From the Judgment & Order 8.3.2004 of the High Court.of Delhi at New
    Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99 of 2003

           S.K.Bhattacharya for the Appellants
                                                                                                B
          Vikas Sharma D.S.Mahara,Anil Katiyar, Sandhaya Goswami, Dr. Natis A.
    Siddiqui, Shiv Kumar Suri,. Balraj Dewan for the respondents

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           DR. ARIJIT PASA¥ AT, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
    Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the application filed by the
    appellants.

          3. Challenge in the petition before the High Court was to the order                   p
    passed by a learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court,
    dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellants.

           4-. Grievances in short were that one M/s Habib Investments Ltd.
    incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act')
    advertised in various newspapers inviting the general public to subscribe in E
    various Fixed Deposits and saving schemes. Since the schemes were very
    lucrative, many innocent persons subscribed to the schemes. Various persons
    were appointed as agents on commission basis to collect the money from
    subscribers. Many people who were to get money complained of cheating
    stating that on the date of maturity, the certificates issued were not honoured. F
    First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Lahori Gate,
    Delhi. Initially, the application was filed for appointment of Receiver in respect
    of Mis Habib Group of Companies and to make an order to attach the
    properties. Five properties were attached. A public notice was issued by the
    learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing attachment of the properties.
    Grievance was made that notwithstanding the order of attachment the G
    properties were either dboosed of or dealt with in a manner contrary to the
    order of attachment.

          5. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the
    application filed by the appellants on the ground that they had no locus
    standi to file a revision petition. The High Court by a single line order H
    778                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A   dismissed the petition filed before it.

           6. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the
    non official respondents that they are willing to dispose off the properties to
    meet the demands of the creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
    that after having violated various· orders passed, one of the non-official
B   respondents has now come to dispose off the properties to meet the demands
    of creditors and to wipe out the liabilities. Ultimately, the people who are the
    creditors have to get back their money. Without entering into the matters
    relating to the commission of contempt, it would be appropriate for the
    concerned Court to work out the modalities as to how the properties can be
C   sold to get the highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities
    can be discharged.

           7. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal directing the concerned Court
    to work out the details and the modalities after hearing learned counsel for
    the parties so that the amounts due to various persons towards creditors and
D   liabilities to be discharged, can be paid.

           8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

    N.J.                                                        Appeal disposed of.