- (1.) The present contempt application has been preferred alleging violation of an order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by this Court in a writ petition being W.P. No.459 of 2018.
(2.) Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the order dated 15th November, 2018 was passed by this Court in view of the specific submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the Bank authorities are not in a position to allow the petitioners to operate the concerned account since the KYC form has not been submitted. Though the petitioners had admittedly complied with such requirement, they have not been allowed to operate the account on altogether different grounds which were never urged at the time of disposal of the writ petition. He submits that upon communication of the said order, the petitioner no.2 was asked to attend a hearing on 26th November, 2018 and he duly appeared and completed the KYC procedure. Even thereafter, the petitioners were not allowed to operate the account and a letter was issued on 31st January, 2019 stating inter alia that a delayed period interest to the tune of Rs.1,07,41,027/- is still due and payable by the petitioners and that the "No Dues Certificate" dated 3rd January, 2018 was issued by the Bank inadvertently. By the said letter, the "No Dues Certificate" was withdrawn and by subsequent letters dated 28th February, 2019 and 5th March, 2019, the petitioners were informed that the current account had been marked with a lien amount of Rs.1,07,41,027/-.
(3.) Mr. Majumder argues that there had been a wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court amounting to civil contempt inasmuch as the Hon'ble Court was induced to sanction a particular course of action on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Such submission on the part of the respondents was false and the Court was misled. Had the Court been apprised of the actual reasons towards denial of operation of the concerned account, the Court would have decided the sustainability of such reasons and grounds in the writ petition itself. The explanations given by the alleged contemnors are clearly unacceptable and mens rea is writ large on their actions. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in Rita Markandey -vs- Surjit Singh Arora , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 14; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102)Through The Amicus Curiae -vs- Ashok Khot & Anr., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 1 and Jahurul Islam -vs- Abul Kalam and Ors ., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1403.;