V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. - (1.) Upon being found guilty of committing contempt of Court, the petitioners who are husband and wife respectively, were sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months along with a fine of Rs.2000/-each, by a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. The said Order having been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('Act' for short), the petitioners have come up with the above Special Leave Petition.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anuj Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.
(3.) The background facts which led to the petitioners being held guilty of contempt of Court, are lucidly recorded in the Order dated 18.07.2017 of the learned Judge. They are as follows: (i) The petitioners were Directors of a company by name Parul Polymers Private Limited, which availed loan/credit facilities from the respondent Bank. The petitioners guaranteed the repayment of the loan and had also offered immovable properties as security. (ii) On 24th July, 2014, the loan of the respondents was categorized as a Non Performing Asset due to defaults in repayment. On 18th August, 2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued for recovery of Rs. 28,82,25,942.24 plus interest. It was followed by a possession notice under section 13(4) in respect of two properties. (iii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.A. No. 367/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, New Delhi ('DRT-III for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRT-III declinedto grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded in the notice under Section 13(2). Eventually the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.03.2015. (v) However, on 01st April, 2015, the petitioners secured a conditional order of stay from DRT-III, New Delhi in S.A. No. 367/2014 whereby the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores within thirty days. The order also stipulated that Rs. 2 crores would be deposited by 03rd April, 2015. (vi) On 03rd April, 2015, the petitioners gave a letter to SHO, Police Station Katju Marg, Rohini, Delhi showing their intention to deposit the amount of Rs. 2 crores by way of four cheques. Therefore, the Receiver was unable to take possession of the properties. (vii) Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the conditional order of stay passed by DRT-III on 01st April, 2015 before the High Court by way of W.P.(C)No.3406/2015 stating that the Bank and DRT-III were acting unfairly and unjustly in not accepting their cheques totalling to Rs. 2 crores. (viii) When the writ petition came for admission and interim orders on 8th April, 2015, the petitioners admitted liability and offered, by way of a statement under oath, to deposit Rs. 7 crores, i.e. 25% of the notice amount in three instalments on or before 30th June, 2015. The Bank gave its assent and thereafter the Court ordered that the possession of the properties of the petitioners shall not be disturbed subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 7 crores on or before 30th June, 2015, i.e. Rs. 2 crores on 30th April, 2015, Rs. 2.5 crores each on 31st May, 2015 and 30th June, 2015. (ix) On 29th April, 2015, the petitioners gave a letter along with four cheques for Rs. 50 lakhs each dated 06th May, 2015 purportedly in compliance of the order dated 08th April, 2015. (x) Accordingly, the possession proceedings for one property scheduled for 30th April, 2015 were deferred by the Bank. But on 08th May, 2015, all the four cheques bounced. ;