IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2005

IN
WP [C] NO.1648 OF 1991

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand, … Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand,

A-8, Green Park Extension, New
Delhi, through its Proprietor,
Shri Suresh Bansal, Resident of
A-8, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016. … Petitioner

Versus

Sr. Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi. ` … Contemnor/
Respondent

A PETITION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT UNDER SECTION

2(b) AND SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT
1971 AND ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON’BLE COURT IN C.W.P. NO.1648 OF 1991 PASSED ON
14.8.2003 AND IN CM NO.9691/2003 IN CWP NO.1648/1991 ON
29.8.2003.

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and his

Companion Justices.

The humble Petition of the

Petitioners above-named

1
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner in the above mentioned Writ Petition is constrained

to file the present Civil Contempt Petition before this Hon’ble Court, as the

Respondents abovenamed have willfully disobeyed the orders of this

Hon’ble Court and have not complied with the Orders passed by this

Hon’ble Court on 14.8.2003 in CWP NO.1648/1991 and on 29.8.2003 in

CM No.9691/2003 in CWP No.1648/1991. The true copies of the orders

dated 14.8.2003 and 29.8.2003 are annexed hereto as Annexure-P/1

(Colly).

2. The Petitioner submits that all the relevant facts and circumstances

leading to the filing of the present Petition have been set out in detail in

the afore-mentioned writ petition and the same are not being repeated

herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid unnecessary repetition. The

Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the

same at the time of hearing for the purpose of adjudication of the present

Petition.

3. At this stage it would be pertinent to highlight certain aspects of the

litigation in CWP No.1648/91 which have compelled the Petitioner herein

to file the present contempt Petition before this Hon’ble Court and also to

apprise this Hon’ble Court of the wrongful conduct of the Contemnors all

along:

(a) Petitioner is a Proprietorship firm carrying on the trade and

business activities, inter alia, of dealing in import and export of

spices etc.

2
(b) In the aforesaid Writ Petition the only question that arose for

consideration is the question of interest payable on the import duty

in respect of goods imported by the Petitioner.

(c) In the aforesaid Writ Petition the amount of duty was not in dispute,

only dispute was with respect to the date from which the interest on

the customs duty would become payable whereas, the Petitioner

contents that the date of notice of demand which is 5.7.1991.

[d] The aforementioned writ petition was accordingly decided vide

judgment and order dated 14 th August, 2004 wherein this Hon’ble

Court unambiguously observed and decided on the basis of

decision rendered in by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of

India Vs. Bangalore Wire Rod Mill [(1996) 3 SCC 588]. It needs to

be mentioned that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in unmistakable terms had held that no interest on customs duty for

warehoused goods could be charged unless and until there was a

notice of demand and the period of payment in the notice of

demand had not expired.

[e] This Hon’ble Court while deciding the aforesaid Writ Petition clearly

held that the impugned notice of demand dated 05.07.1991

inasmuch as it provides for interest for the period from 16.06.1989

to 05.07.1991 is hereby quashed and set aside. To this extent, the

writ petition is allowed. On the payment of the interest amount due

for the period 05.07.1991 to 13.07.1991, which the petitioner ought

to do within a week from today, the bank guarantees furnished and

kept alive during the pendency of the present matter would stand

3
 discharged. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no

order as to costs.

[f] Subsequently the Petitioner moved an Application i.e. C.M.

No.9691/2003 in the aforesaid Writ Petition for correction of a

typographical error which has crept into the judgment dated

14.08.2003. In the same Application the Petitioner further prayed to

direct the concerned authorities to discharge the Bank guarantees

details of which are given in para 5 of the said Application. A true

copy of the CM No.9691/2003 are hereto marked an annexed as

Annexure-P/1.

[g] While passing the order on the aforesaid Misc. Application the

Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that no further directions

with regard to discharge of bank guarantee is required as the

judgment dated 14.8.2003 clearly indicates that the bank

guarantees furnished and kept alive during the pendency of the

present matter would stand discharged.

[h] It is in these circumstances that the aforementioned writ petition

filed by the Petitioners was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide

its orders dated 14th August, 2003 and 29th August, 2003.

[i] Subsequently on 1st September, 2003 the petitioner wrote a letter

to the Manager, Punjab National Bank requesting him in

compliance of the Court order to cancel the Bank Guarantee and

release the FDR pledged with you as margin money together with

interest thereon and also the tittle deed of property bearing No.A-8,

4
 Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Further on 8 th September, 2003

again the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Respondent Contemnor

enclosing the certified copy of the Annexure-P/1.

[j] On 16th January, 2004 the Respondents wrote a letter to the

Petitioner stating therein that to pay the total Commission due as

on day amounting to Rs.1,49,900/-. Accordingly the Petitioner

deposited the same alongwith a bond undertaking to indemnity the

Bank against any loss caused/to be caused on account of its

having released Bank Guarantee Nos.1/91 to 7/91.

[k] On 28th of March, 2004 the Petitioner further wrote a letter to the

Respondent to release the bank guarantee and requested to return

the margin money FDR’s and the original title deeds of the

collateral security i.e. property located at A-8 Green Park

Extension, New Delhi-16, as all the formalities as required by the

Bank has been completed.

[l] On 29th of April, 2004 the Respondent wrote a letter to the

Petitioner stating therein that the bank guarantee under reference

are being released in terms of High Court orders in Writ Petition

No.1648/91 and the FDR’s pledged as security are being released.

The Respondent further stated in that letter that the conveyance

deed of the property shall be returned shortly may be within 2 to 3

months. A true copy of the letter dated 29.4.2004 is annexed

herewith as ANNEXURE-P/2.

5
[m] At this stage it is further pertinent to mention that a contempt

Petition filed against the Respondent as well as the Customs

Authorities being Contempt Case (C) No.400/2004 while came up

for hearing the Petitioner in view of the request made by the

Respondent in the aforesaid letter did not press for release of the

tittle deed of property bearing A-8 Green Park Extension, New

Delhi.

[n] It is further submitted that the holding of the aforesaid original tittle

deeds of the collateral security i.e. property located at A-8, Green

Park Extension, New Delhi-16, it totally illegal and the same is

willful disobedience of this Hon’ble Courts order dated 14.8.2003

and 29.8.2003 and same is amounting to contempt of this Hon’ble

Courts order dated 14.8.2003.

[o] It is further submitted that after the disposal of Contempt Case (C)

No.400/2004 the Petitioner personally requested several times

however, the Respondent did not pay any heed to the request

made by them.

[p] Being aggrieved the Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 2.8.2005

through their Advocate calling upon the Respondent to release the

original tittle deed of the property bearing No.A-8, Green Park

Extension, New Delhi within 3 weeks from today, however, in reply

there to the Respondent has categorically said that the Petitioner

had not delivered any documents in respect of property No.A-8,

Green Park Extension, New Delhi-16 as security and/or to create

6
 equitable mortgage, and as such they have no locus standie to

claim the said tittle deeds.

[q] That the refusal of not having the tittle deeds is contrary to the

Respondent’s own admission made by them in letter dated

29.4.2004. It seems that the Respondent has deliberately has not

released the aforesaid tittle deeds in willful disobedience of this

Hon’ble Court orders

4. It is further submitted that entire object and purpose of institution of

writ petition will stand defeated if the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court

are not enforced and given effect to according to their letter and spirit and

effectively and surely.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to:

[a] Issue appropriate directions to initiate contempt proceedings

against the Respondents-Contemnors for willfully disobeying the

orders dated 14th August, 2003 and 29 th August, 2003 passed by

this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.1648 of 1991 and CM No.9691/2003

in compliance of which the Petitioners had approached the

Respondents-Contemnors who failed to take any action for

releasing the tittle deeds of property bearing No.A-8, Green Park,

Extension, New Delhi.

7
[b] Pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS, AS IS

DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVERY PRAY

FILED BY:
DRAWN BY:

Uday Kumar INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES

Advocate ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
16, TODARMAL ROAD,
NEAR BENGALI MARKET
NEW DELHI -110001
New Delhi
October 2005

8
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2005

IN
WP [C] NO.1648 OF 1991

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand, … Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand,

A-8, Green Park Extension, New
Delhi, through its Proprietor,
Shri Suresh Bansal, Resident of
A-8, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016. … Petitioner

Versus

Sr. Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi. ` … Contemnor/
Respondent

FILED BY:

Ms. Namrata Chopra

INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
16, TODARMAL ROAD,
NEAR BENGALI MARKET
NEW DELHI -110001
New Delhi
October ,2005

9
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2005
IN
WP [C] NO.1648 OF 1991

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand, … Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

INDEX

S. PARTICULARS Page
No. No.

1. Notice of Motion A
B
2. Urgent Application

3. Memo of Parties C

4. A Petition for Contempt of Court under Section 2(b) 1 -8

and Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971
and Article 215 of the Constitution of India for
willful disobedience of the order passed by the
Hon’ble court in C.W.P. No.1648 of 1991 passed
on 14.8.2003 and in CM no.9691/2003 in CWP
No.1648/1991 on 29.8.2003.

5. ANNEXURE-P/1 (Colly)
The true copies of the orders dated 14.8.2003 and
29.8.2003.

6. ANNEXURE-P/2
A true copy of the letter dated 29.4.2004.

8. Vakalatnama
FILED BY:

UDAY KUMAR/NAMRATA CHOPRA

INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
16, TODARMAL ROAD,
NEAR BENGALI MARKET
NEW DELHI –110001
October ,2005

10
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CONT. CAS [C] No.1221 OF 2005
IN
WP [C] NO.1648 OF 1991

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand, … Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

INDEX

S. PARTICULARS Page
No. No.

1. Certified copy of the order dated 23.1.2006 1–2

Passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the CC No.356/2006 alongwith the
typed copy.

FILED BY:

UDAY KUMAR/NAMRATA CHOPRA

INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
16, TODARMAL ROAD,
NEAR BENGALI MARKET
NEW DELHI –110001
January ,2006

11
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.7 SECTION III

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) /2006

CC No.356/2006
(From the judgement and order dated 8.04.2005 in WP No.1648/1991
of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)

Union of India & Ors. …Petitioner(s)

Versus

M/s Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand …Respondent(s)

With I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP) and office report)

Date: 23/01/2006 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.K. SEMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. SRIKRISHNA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Mohan, ASG

Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv.,
Mr. Vivek Sood, Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.
Mr. Uday Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Namrata Chopra, Adv.
Ms. Humayunisha, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Rufus, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

12
 ORDER

There is delay of 160 days in filing the petition which has not

been properly explained. The Special Leave Petition is also dismissed

both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Ganga Thakur) (Anand Singh)
PS to Registrar Court Master

13
14