SUBRATA ROY SAHARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 06,2014
Subrata Roy Sahara
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
REX V. SUSSEX JUSTICES,EX PARTE MCCARTHY [REFERRED TO]FROME UNITED BREWERIES CO. V. BATH JUSTICES [REFERRED TO]
REX V. ESSEX JUSTICES,EX PARTE PERKINS [REFERRED TO]
BHATIA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. D C PATEL [REFERRED TO]
ITTYAVIRA MATHAI VS. VARKEY VARKEY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOVIND PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
B RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
KANU SANYAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DARJEELING [REFERRED TO]
MAINA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BATRA CHARLES GURMUKH SOBRAJ VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PIARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JOLLY GEORGE VARGHESE VS. BANK OF COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
JHARIA S O MANIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP KAUR VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP KAUR VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
BALRAJ VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. VIRENDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ DEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHAHADA KHATOON VS. AMJAD ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAJ DEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
M S AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR VS. JAGDEESHAN [REFERRED TO]
RUPA ASHOK HURRA VS. ASHOK HURRA [REFERRED TO]
SHANTHA ALIAS USHADEVI VS. B G SHIVANANJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. ASHOK KHOT [REFERRED TO]
DILIP S DAHANUKAR VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI LAL VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
K A ANSARI VS. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN VS. SADANANDAN K [REFERRED TO]
R K ANAND VS. REGISTRAR DELHI HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
K A ABBAS HSA VS. SABU JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI RATILAL PATEL TR. USHABEN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
POONGODI VS. THANGAVEL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA VS. IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-8] [REFERRED TO]BHUMIREDDI AVINASH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
NILANJAN GUPTA VS. STATE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
BINDU DHANWAL VS. BALWINDER KUMAR, VICE CHAIRMAN, DDA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH & ANR VS. YOGESH KUMAR SHUKLA,RAJYA SAMPATT ADHIKARI,RAJYA SAMPATTI VIBHAG [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
RACHNA MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ S. BANSAL. VS. ARUNKUMAR RAMSWARUP AGGARWAL & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
BHANDARI ENGINEERS & BUILDERS PVT LTD VS. MAHARIA RAJ JOINT VENTURE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-91] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT MADAN VS. NARINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-191] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM CHAND AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHALPATI DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-81] [REFERRED TO]
SANTA SINGH VS. MAHINDER KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
BUSINESS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHWAR MARIK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
M. SARASWATHI VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (TRANSPORT-2) DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
COL BALDEV SINGH SEKHON & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-563] [REFERRED]
VIJAY KUMAR KICHLU VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-193] [REFERRED TO]
BANGA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS. JAGMOHAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2021-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. TRIMURTI EXPORTS VS. M/S. MODELAMA EXPORTS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-94] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SEBI) VS. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPN. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS VS. DURGA TRADING CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM MAHANTA SARMA VS. KALYAN SARMA [LAWS(GAU)-2024-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
C S AGGARWAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-187] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL VS. YASHVEER SINGH & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA KRAFT PAPER MILLS LLP VS. RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
HS BEDI VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT INDUSTRIES VS. INDIAN TOBACCO COMPANY (ITC) [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN ANANDRAO PENDAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-219] [REFERRED TO]
ABU NASAR VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-641] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VS. HC KALIKA SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-186] [REFERRED TO]
SUGESAN TRANSPORT PVT LTD VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
PILLAMADHAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-463] [REFERRED TO]
SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. ANKUR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-288] [REFERRED TO]
M/S V.L.S. FINANCE LTD. VS. S.P. GUPTA AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
MADAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-455] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ KUMAR VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-328] [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. S.A. SINHA VS. DR. LEO REBELLO [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHITA NEWAL GAWTE VS. NEWAL VAIBHAV NAMDEORAO GAWATE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
BHANDARI ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. MAHARIA RAJ JOINT VENTURE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-143] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA SUSTEN PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NHPC LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-98] [REFERRED TO]
SPML INFRA LTD. VS. NTPC LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. HOTEL LEELAVENTURE LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. RAJADHANI RYTHU PARIRAKSHANA SAMITHI [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH HIRANI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHAR LAL & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU KISHOR MEHTA VS. PRAKASH PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2022-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KISHNA RAM BABAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
MICHEAL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LIMITED VS. PRESIDENT, ST.ALPHOZA TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-461] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR KHANNA VS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-288] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH MEHTA AND ORS. VS. SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
B LAXMAIAH VS. ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
NISHI GUPTA VS. CATTLE REMEDIES [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. H.C. SHATRUGHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM VS. STATE OF U P AND 14 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-465] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-155] [REFERRED TO]
KANT TIWARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KANT TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-341] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
POOJAGURINDER KAUR KAINTH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
KANTILAL JIVABHAI PATEL SINCE DECD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-237] [REFERRED]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. PROMINENT HOTELS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHANA JATIN GANDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-656] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH GAHLOT VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DELHI)(D.B.) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-358] [REFERRED TO]
BRIAN CASTELLINO VS. BELL FINVEST (INDIA) LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-202] [REFERRED TO]
NITISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV PRAKASH VS. SEEMA KUKREJA [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI, RIPBON BUILDING, CHENNAI VS. B. THIRULOCHANA KUMARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY VS. CHAIRMAN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KALAWATI VS. STATE OF U.P.THRU. SECY. MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKAS VIBHAG & ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-149] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN DEVI VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-481] [REFERRED]
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VS. PROF KAUSHAL K VERMA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
TEJPAL SINGH VS. SURINDER KUMAR DEWAN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
ACE DESIGN LTD VS. GAURAV SARUP SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-249] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. DSP JAYANT KASHMIRI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
JARAM SINGH VS. ANIL KUMAR KHACHI [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUVENDU ADHIKARI VS. MANOJ MALAVIYA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS YADAV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-237] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN KRISHNA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24 VS. M H PATEL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
M/S VAJRA CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-98] [REFERRED]
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM DAS GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
TRIMURTI EXPORTS; DEVENDRA N KAMAT; BALCHANDRA S BAKHLE VS. MODELAMA EXPORTS LIMITED; RASHID KHAN (PARTNER) [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-241] [REFERRED]
OM PRAKASH AGGARWAL VS. RAJ KUMAR MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-381] [REFERRED TO]
KISMAT SINGH VS. PIARIYA DEVI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-313] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM KUMRIA AND ORS. VS. PHARMA VENTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-322] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM VS. JAGAN NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
SAT DEV SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-178] [REFERRED TO]
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. VS. GOUTAM BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
YAMUNA PRASAD DUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRIN. SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-143] [REFERRED TO]
SHALU SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-179] [REFERRED]
ANKIT YADAV VS. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. AMRIK SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
VEDICA PROCON P. LTD. VS. BALLESHWAR GREENS P. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-201] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)I. Should we be hearing this case?
Would it not be better, for another Bench to hear this case?
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-
"(a) Declare the order dated 4.3.2014 as void, nullity and non-est in the eyes of law;
(b) Declare that the incarceration and the custody of the petitioner are illegal which should be terminated forthwith;
(c) Issue such other writ in the nature of Habeas (corpus) or other writs, order or direction for release of the petitioner from the illegal custody.
(d) Pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition reveals, that in sum and substance the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by us in Contempt Petition (Civil) nos. 412 and 413 of 2012 and Contempt Petition (Civil) no. 260 of 2013. To understand the exact purport of the prayers made in the writ petition, it is essential to extract herein the order dated 4.3.2014, which is subject matter of challenge through the present criminal writ petition:-
"1. Contemnors are personally present in the Court, including the fifth respondent, who has been brought to the Court by the U.P. Police, in due execution of our non-bailable warrant of arrest.
2. We have heard the Senior Counsel on various occasions and perused the various documents, affidavits, etc. We have heard the learned counsel and contemnors today as well. We are fully convinced that the contemnors have not complied with our directions contained in the judgment dated August 31, 2012, as well as orders dated December 5, 2012 and February 25, 2013 passed in Civil Appeal no. 8643 of 2012 and I.A. no. 67 of 2013 by a three Judge Bench of this Court.
3. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the contemnors to fully comply with those orders and purge the contempt committed by them but, rather than availing of the same, they have adopted various dilatory tactics to delay the implementation of the orders of this Court. Non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court shakes the very foundation of our judicial system and undermines the rule of law, which we are bound to honour and protect. This is essential to maintain faith and confidence of the people of this country in the judiciary.
4. We have found that the contemnors have maintained an unreasonable stand throughout the proceedings before SEBI, SAT, High Court and even before this Court. Reports/analysis filed by SEBI on 18.2.2014 make detailed reference to the submissions, documents, etc. furnished by the contemnors, which indicates that they are filing and making unacceptable statements and affidavits all through and even in the contempt proceedings. Documents and affidavits produced by the contemnors themselves would apparently falsify their refund theory and cast serious doubts about the existence of the so-called investors. All the fact finding authorities have opined that majority of investors do not exist. Preservation of market integrity is extremely important for economic growth of this country and for national interest. Maintaining investors' confidence requires market integrity and control of market abuse. Market abuse is a serious financial crime which undermines the very financial structure of this country and will make imbalance in wealth between haves and have nots.
5. We notice, on this day also, no proposal is forthcoming to honour the judgment of this Court dated 31st August, 2012 and the orders passed by this Court on December 05, 2012 and February 25, 2013 by the three Judge Bench. In such circumstances, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, we order detention of all the contemnors, except Mrs. Vandana Bhargava (the fourth respondent) and send them to judicial custody at Delhi, till the next date of hearing. This concession is being extended towards the fourth respondent because she is a woman Director, and also, to enable the contemnors to be in a position to propose an acceptable solution for execution of our orders, by coordinating with the detenues. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava, who herself is one of the Directors, is permitted to be in touch with the rest of the contemnors and submit an acceptable proposal arrived at during their detention, so that the Court can pass appropriate orders.
6. List on March 11, 2014 at 2.00 p.m. All the contemnors be produced in Court on that date. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava, the fourth respondent, to appear on her own. However, liberty is granted for mentioning the matters for preponement of the date, if a concrete and acceptable proposal can be offered in the meantime."
(2.)When this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 12.3.2014, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought liberty to make a frank and candid submission. He told us, that it would be embarrassing for him, to canvass the submissions which he is bound to raise in the matter before us, i.e., before the Bench as it was presently structured. It was also his submission, that hearing this matter would also discomfort and embarrass us as well. He therefore suggested, that we should recuse ourselves from hearing the case, and require it to be heard by another composition, not including either of us.
(3.)Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, vociferously implored us not to withdraw ourselves from hearing the case. It was his vigorous and emphatic contention, that the present petition was not maintainable, either under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or under any other law of the land. Inviting the Court's attention to the heading of the petition, it was submitted, that it did not disclose any legal provision, whereunder the present writ petition had been filed. He submitted, that as per its own showing (ascertainable from the title of the petition), the present writ petition had been filed, under the power recognized and exercised by this Court, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 2 SCC 602. It was the assertion of learned counsel, that the above judgment, has now been clarified by this Court. According to learned counsel, it has now been settled, that the above judgment did not fashion or create any such power or jurisdiction, as is sought to be invoked by the petitioner.
Would it not be better, for another Bench to hear this case?
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-
"(a) Declare the order dated 4.3.2014 as void, nullity and non-est in the eyes of law;
(b) Declare that the incarceration and the custody of the petitioner are illegal which should be terminated forthwith;
(c) Issue such other writ in the nature of Habeas (corpus) or other writs, order or direction for release of the petitioner from the illegal custody.
(d) Pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition reveals, that in sum and substance the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by us in Contempt Petition (Civil) nos. 412 and 413 of 2012 and Contempt Petition (Civil) no. 260 of 2013. To understand the exact purport of the prayers made in the writ petition, it is essential to extract herein the order dated 4.3.2014, which is subject matter of challenge through the present criminal writ petition:-
"1. Contemnors are personally present in the Court, including the fifth respondent, who has been brought to the Court by the U.P. Police, in due execution of our non-bailable warrant of arrest.
2. We have heard the Senior Counsel on various occasions and perused the various documents, affidavits, etc. We have heard the learned counsel and contemnors today as well. We are fully convinced that the contemnors have not complied with our directions contained in the judgment dated August 31, 2012, as well as orders dated December 5, 2012 and February 25, 2013 passed in Civil Appeal no. 8643 of 2012 and I.A. no. 67 of 2013 by a three Judge Bench of this Court.
3. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the contemnors to fully comply with those orders and purge the contempt committed by them but, rather than availing of the same, they have adopted various dilatory tactics to delay the implementation of the orders of this Court. Non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court shakes the very foundation of our judicial system and undermines the rule of law, which we are bound to honour and protect. This is essential to maintain faith and confidence of the people of this country in the judiciary.
4. We have found that the contemnors have maintained an unreasonable stand throughout the proceedings before SEBI, SAT, High Court and even before this Court. Reports/analysis filed by SEBI on 18.2.2014 make detailed reference to the submissions, documents, etc. furnished by the contemnors, which indicates that they are filing and making unacceptable statements and affidavits all through and even in the contempt proceedings. Documents and affidavits produced by the contemnors themselves would apparently falsify their refund theory and cast serious doubts about the existence of the so-called investors. All the fact finding authorities have opined that majority of investors do not exist. Preservation of market integrity is extremely important for economic growth of this country and for national interest. Maintaining investors' confidence requires market integrity and control of market abuse. Market abuse is a serious financial crime which undermines the very financial structure of this country and will make imbalance in wealth between haves and have nots.
5. We notice, on this day also, no proposal is forthcoming to honour the judgment of this Court dated 31st August, 2012 and the orders passed by this Court on December 05, 2012 and February 25, 2013 by the three Judge Bench. In such circumstances, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, we order detention of all the contemnors, except Mrs. Vandana Bhargava (the fourth respondent) and send them to judicial custody at Delhi, till the next date of hearing. This concession is being extended towards the fourth respondent because she is a woman Director, and also, to enable the contemnors to be in a position to propose an acceptable solution for execution of our orders, by coordinating with the detenues. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava, who herself is one of the Directors, is permitted to be in touch with the rest of the contemnors and submit an acceptable proposal arrived at during their detention, so that the Court can pass appropriate orders.
6. List on March 11, 2014 at 2.00 p.m. All the contemnors be produced in Court on that date. Mrs. Vandana Bhargava, the fourth respondent, to appear on her own. However, liberty is granted for mentioning the matters for preponement of the date, if a concrete and acceptable proposal can be offered in the meantime."
(2.)When this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 12.3.2014, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought liberty to make a frank and candid submission. He told us, that it would be embarrassing for him, to canvass the submissions which he is bound to raise in the matter before us, i.e., before the Bench as it was presently structured. It was also his submission, that hearing this matter would also discomfort and embarrass us as well. He therefore suggested, that we should recuse ourselves from hearing the case, and require it to be heard by another composition, not including either of us.
(3.)Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, vociferously implored us not to withdraw ourselves from hearing the case. It was his vigorous and emphatic contention, that the present petition was not maintainable, either under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or under any other law of the land. Inviting the Court's attention to the heading of the petition, it was submitted, that it did not disclose any legal provision, whereunder the present writ petition had been filed. He submitted, that as per its own showing (ascertainable from the title of the petition), the present writ petition had been filed, under the power recognized and exercised by this Court, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 2 SCC 602. It was the assertion of learned counsel, that the above judgment, has now been clarified by this Court. According to learned counsel, it has now been settled, that the above judgment did not fashion or create any such power or jurisdiction, as is sought to be invoked by the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.