Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2006. Case: National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Tuncay Alankus and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberContempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: Gaurav Banerjee, ASG, Arjun Krishnan and Ghanshyam Joshi, Advs. and For Respondents: Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Bahar U. Barqi and Mahmood Alam, Advs. for Aftab Ali Khan, Adv.
JudgesAftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
IssueCompanies Act; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 11, 13(1), 13(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 409, 420; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313; Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 47 Rule 3(C); Constitution of India - Article 129; Contempt of Courts Act
Citation2013 (3) ACR 2490, 2014 (I) AD (SC) 150, AIR 2013 SC 1299, 2013 (3) CDR 759 (SC), JT 2013 (8) SC 375, 2013 (4) MLJ 453, 2013 (3) RCR 168 (Cri), 2013 (5) SCALE 255, 2013 (9) SCC 600
Judgement DateApril 02, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Aftab Alam, J.

  1. This petition is filed under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 making the prayer to punish Respondent No. 1 for withdrawing a very large sum of money from his bank account in a Swiss bank in violation of this Court's orders dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006. As a matter of fact, by an earlier order passed by the Court on April 1, 2010, in course of the proceedings of the case, Respondent No. 1 has actually been held guilty of contempt of court; it is a brief order, wherein Paragraphs 6 & 7, the Court observed and held as follows:

  2. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notices it was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is that he has violated the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. In fact, the Respondent No. 1-contemnor has filed his reply thereto. However, from a perusal of the reply filed by the contemnor it is clear that he has not denied the allegation of the Petitioner that he has withdrawn money by flouting the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006.

  3. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material on the record to suggest that contemnor- Respondent No. 1 has committed contempt of Court. Therefore, we hold the contemnor guilty of Contempt of Court.

  4. On that date, however, the Court did not give any punishment to the Respondent but directed the case to be listed on April 12, 2010 for passing the sentence on the contempt, observing further that, in the meanwhile, if the contemnor deposited the amount withdrawn from the bank, the Court might consider recalling the order passed on that date.

  5. The Respondent did not deposit the amount allegedly withdrawn by him from the bank account but on April 6, 2010 filed a petition for recall of the order holding him guilty of contempt of court. He took the plea that the order dated April 1, 2010 was based on the incorrect premise that in the reply to the contempt petition filed by him, he did not deny the allegation that he had made withdrawals from his bank account by flouting the Court's order dated September 4, 2006. He pointed out that in the reply petition, he had clearly and repeatedly said that he had not withdrawn any money from his bank account after the orders of this Court, dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006 and he reiterated that statement in the petition for recall of the order.

  6. After that, the case was heard on a number of dates and was finally taken up on July 17, 2012 when the matter was practically heard all over again also on the question whether or not the Respondent had committed contempt of court by withdrawing money from his bank account in the Swiss bank in violation of the Court's orders dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006.

  7. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the respective contentions made on behalf of the parties may be stated thus. The Petitioner, National Fertilizers Ltd., is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act owned and controlled by the GOI.

  8. Karsan Danismanlik Turizm Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited STI (hereinafter: Karsan) is a Turkish company. The Respondent, Tuncay Alankus was the manager of Karsan with individual signature and one Cihan Karanci (not a party to this proceeding) was his deputy manager and counselor. Both Alankus and Karanci were the beneficiaries of Karsan.

  9. The Petitioner company entered into an agreement, dated November 9, 1995 with Karsan, which presented itself as a producer of urea. The contract was for supply of two lakh metric tons of urea, 46 N fertilizer at a price of US$ 190 per metric ton. The total value of the contract was US$ 38,000,000. In terms of the contract, the Petitioner company was to pay to Karsan the full contract value in advance by way of two remittances i.e., (1) US$ 380,000 towards insurance premium before entering into the contract and (2) US$ 37,620,000 towards cost of urea after entering into the contract.

  10. On November 22, 1995, three bank accounts in the names of Karsan, Alankus and Karanci were opened with Pictet and Cie Bank (hereinafter: Pictet) in Geneva. The form for opening the account of Karsan indicated that Alankus and Karanci as the beneficial owners.

  11. The three freshly opened accounts were numbered as (i) Account No. 91923, (ii) Account No. 91924 and (iii) Account No. 91925. In this case, we are concerned with the operations in Alankus's account number 91925 with Pictet.

  12. On November 23, 1995, Karsan asked the Petitioner company to wire the sale price of urea on its account, opened with Pictet. On November 29, 1995, the amount US$ 37,620,000 was paid by the Petitioner company on that account.

  13. On November 30, 1995, the account of Karsan was debited and the sum of US$ 28,100,000 was transferred to the account of Alankus (Account No. 91925) with Pictet; from that amount, the sum of US$ 12,500,000 was split between November 30, 1995 and May 20, 1996, on the accounts of Alankus, his daughter and Cihan Karanci in banks in Ankara, Almaty and Geneva.

  14. Despite making full payment of the contract money, the Petitioner did not receive a single grain of urea and it later came to light that the insurance cover taken out in connection with the contract did not provide any protection against the loss suffered by the Petitioner. Enquiries were made in India and on May 28, 1996, the CBI lodged a first information report under Section 120B read with Sections 409 /420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 7 /11 /13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • RAM KISHAN vs TARUN BAJAJ . Supreme Court, 17-01-2014
    • India
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • 17 January 2014
    ...SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). 10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. The word ‘wilful’ introduces a mental el......
  • Contempt Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013. Case: N. Ramadas Vs C.A. Mohamed Abdul Huq. High Court of Madras (India)
    • India
    • 12 January 2015
    ... ... by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 1390 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011 ... Accordingly, he was hauled for civil contempt. Challenging the said order passed by ... There is neither a civil nor a criminal contempt made out against the appellant. The ... of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM KISHAN V. SH.TARUN BAJAJ AND OTHERS ... Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati ... & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR ... v. Md. Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, ... Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735)." ... Keeping the above said principles ... ...
  • COPC Nos. 753, 623 and 783 of 2015. Case: Uma Dutt and Ors. Vs Srikant Baldi and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
    • India
    • 9 December 2015
    ...Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Juncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). 10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful. The word willful introduces a......
  • CMP No. 11068 of 2015 in COPC No. 276 of 2015 and CWP No. 1259 of 2015. Case: Court on its own motion Vs P.C. Dhiman and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
    • India
    • 15 March 2016
    ...Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful. The word willful introduces a men......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • RAM KISHAN vs TARUN BAJAJ . Supreme Court, 17-01-2014
    • India
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • 17 January 2014
    ...SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). 10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. The word ‘wilful’ introduces a mental el......
  • Contempt Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of 2013. Case: N. Ramadas Vs C.A. Mohamed Abdul Huq. High Court of Madras (India)
    • India
    • 12 January 2015
    ... ... by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 1390 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No. 25046 of 2011 ... Accordingly, he was hauled for civil contempt. Challenging the said order passed by ... There is neither a civil nor a criminal contempt made out against the appellant. The ... of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM KISHAN V. SH.TARUN BAJAJ AND OTHERS ... Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati ... & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR ... v. Md. Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, ... Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735)." ... Keeping the above said principles ... ...
  • COPC Nos. 753, 623 and 783 of 2015. Case: Uma Dutt and Ors. Vs Srikant Baldi and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
    • India
    • 9 December 2015
    ...Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Juncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). 10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful. The word willful introduces a......
  • CMP No. 11068 of 2015 in COPC No. 276 of 2015 and CWP No. 1259 of 2015. Case: Court on its own motion Vs P.C. Dhiman and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
    • India
    • 15 March 2016
    ...Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful. The word willful introduces a men......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT