Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages Private Ltd. and Another vs Khushinder Singh and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this contempt petition, a prayer has been made that the respondents be proceed against under the Contempt of Courts Act, and also by way of ad-interim directions the respondents be directed to put the petitioners in the affairs and management as also in the physical possession of factory premises of company and status-quo be ordered to be restored as on 2.3.1995 when the order of the Civil Court was passed. It has been alleged in this petition that the petitioners filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents and some other persons who are also belonging to the same group and are associates/representatives of the group. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for restraining the defendants therein from holding out as Director representatives of M/s. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverage Private Ltd., Bhankerpur (hereinafter referred to as the ''BSB'') and from interfering in any manner in the affairs and management of the company. The Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 2.3.1994 restrained the respondents from holding out as Directors/representatives of B.S.B. and from interfering in any manner in the affairs and management of the plaintiff companies fully detailed in the head-note of the application. It has further been alleged that the order was served upon the respondents, but they refused to receive the same except respondent No. l, in the presence of respondent No. 2 who received the same at 8.55 P.M. on 23.1994. Respondents No. 1 and 2 after going through the said order and also suit papers, assured the petitioners full protection. But within half an hour, respondents No. 1 and 2 along with full force of police came to the factory premises and directed the petitioners to move out of factory premises, or otherwise they would be forcibly thrown out. The Directors and representatives of the petitioners had no other alternative but to leave the factory premises. Thus, it has been stated that the direction of respondents No. 1 and 2 was in willful disobedience of orders of Senior Sub Judge, Patiala.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of some of the respondents wherein they have denied the averments made in the petition.

Having heard the learned counsel, I find that no case is made out for proceeding against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. Contempt petition came up for motion hearing before G.R. Majithia on 4.3.1994 when the following order was passed:-

" Notices to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated to issue to the respondents for 9.3.1994.

S/Shri Arun Kumar Walia and Arun Kumar Monga, Advocates, accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

Learned counsel for the parties are at issue as to which of the parties to the lis are in actual physical possession of the Company. However, they agree that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, will supervise the working of the Company till 9th of March, 1994.

The petitioner and respondent No. 3 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, initially for to and for expenses".

It is also not in dispute that order dated 2.3.1994 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, the contents of which has been alleged in this petition, was impugned in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala who vide his order dated 18.3.1994 passed interim directions thereby modifying the order of Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, against which Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 was preferred. Vide order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994, this Court in regard to possession, has found as under: -

"During the course of arguments, some controversy was raised as to who was in possession as on the date when suit at Patiala was filed, but it was fairly conceded by Mr. G. Ramaswami that plaintiffs in Patiala suit, at no time prior to 22.2.1994 came to control, run or manage the B.S.B. The reason for this concession is apparent; the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura. Arun Kumar Jain filed complaint on 21.2.1994 u/s 145 Cr.P.C. in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, and the prayer made in this complaint was for restraining the respondents therein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute, besides a prayer for police protection. On this complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order of even date, having found a prima-facie case in taking action u/s 145 Cr.P.C, ordered the summoning of respondents therein for 17.3.1994 and meanwhile, respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession of rightful claimants, including Arun Kumar Jain who described himself as Director of B.S.B. The order also mentions that a copy of the order be sent to S.H.O. of P.S. Dera Bassi for compliance. It was on the strength of this order that the plaintiffs in Patiala suit tried to take control of the industrial unit. It further appears from the record of proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, that on 2.3.1994 the Sub Divisional Magistrate on fresh consideration of the matter, as also on perusal of report of S.H.O. P.S. Dera Bassi, felt satisfied that proceedings initiated at the behest of Arun Kumar Jain are vitiated and an intended abuse of process of the Court. In his order dated'' 2.3.1994, the Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded that "as a matter of fact there is no such dispute with regard to possession of the subject matter referred to above which may likely to cause breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility. Eve as per the latest report of the S.H.O. P.S. Dera Bassi dated 9.2.1994 as also report as recent as 28.2.1994, Shri Sarbjit Singh representing the party No. 2 is in peaceful possession along with his work force and no Imminent danger to peace is apprehended. Being satisfied that it is unnecessary to carry on these proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C., I hereby drop all proceedings in respect of above said distillery. It was only on 2.3.1994 when the Sub Divisional Magistrate decided to drop the proceedings, suit at Patiala was filed and on that very day the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining interim injunction. After having obtained interim injunction from the Senior Sub Judge Patiala, C.O.C.P. No. 199 of 1994 was filed in this Court on 3-3-1994. On 4-3-1994; G.R. Majithia, J. on finding that the parties were at issue as to which of the parties is in actual physical possession of the company on agreement of counsel for the parties directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala to supervise the working of the company till 9th of March, 1994, and that order is continuing till date. In view of the order in contempt petition, none of the parties is in control of the company. As a matter of fact, no manufacturing activity took place between 22-2-1994 and presently too, no manufacturing is being done in the industrial unit and, therefore, as to who was in possession at the time of filing of Patiala suit is not very important for the decision of the revision petition an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

Vide a detailed order passed in Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994, it has also been held that plaintiffs in civil suit No. 460 of 1994 and defendants in civil suit No. 33 1994 are entitled to injunction and a direction has been given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, to give them physical possession of the industrial unit. In view of the finding given in Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994, there is no merit in this contempt petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.