TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt observed and held as follows: 6. 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of the reply filed by the contemnor it is clear that he has not denied the allegation of the Petitioner that he has withdrawn money by flouting the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. 7. 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. 2. 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passing the sentence on the contempt, observing further that, in the meanwhile, if the contemnor deposited the amount withdrawn from the bank, the Court might consider recalling the order passed on that date. 3. The Respondent did not deposit the amount allegedly withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not withdraw the money from his Swiss bank account. The counsel appearing for the Respondent asked for a short adjournment to take instructions regarding the undertaking asked for by the Court and the SLPs were, therefore, directed to be listed on September 4, 2006. 17. On September 3, 2006, the Respondent communicated to his lawyer Miss Seema Juneja in writing, stating that he had been in jail for about 7.5 years and after release on bail, under one of the conditions of the bail, he was not permitted to leave Delhi. His request for permission to travel abroad and meet his advocates for consultation had been declined. Therefore, he could not get any information. He further stated in the communication to his lawyer that he had asked Pictet bank for information by fax but he had not received any response. Referring further to the various kinds of proceedings going before the Swiss courts, he requested his lawyer to inform the Supreme Court that he was in India for 10 years and he had no access to his accounts in Switzerland and to submit before the Court that the matter had already been decided after lapse of 10 years (sic). He had not received any reply and he was waiting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial was not concluded within one year and Alankus was not freed on bail during that period as per the terms stipulated by the Swiss authorities. 22. Besides the criminal attachment, dated June 19, 1996, the Petitioner was also able to obtain the civil attachment of the three bank accounts in question on October 3, 2000 from the Court of First Instance, Geneva. 23. On September 30, 2002, Pictet and Cie Bank, Geneva, informed the Federal Department of Justice and Police, Geneva, as follows: Please share below the total balance of the sued accounts. Their credits (value on 30.09.2002) are as follows: Account No. 91923 owner Karsan Ltd. - US$ 232,253/- Account No. 91924 owner Mr. Cihan Karanci - US$ 394,757/- Account No. 91925 owner Mr. Tuncay Alankus - US$ 10,763,412. 24. The civil attachment order dated October 3, 2000 became inoperative on June 1, 2006 when the Petitioner lost its appeal in Swiss Supreme Court. and it was presumably for that reason that the stay petition was filed by the Petitioner in SLP(criminal) No. 13 of 2006 which was apparently on an altogether different issue. Nonetheless, this Court deemed fit to pass the order dated September 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, this Court had passed the following order: Mr. Shanti Bhushan, senior advocate appearing for the contemnor - Tuncay Alankus, stated that on September 04, 2006, when this Court passed the interim order of injunction against his client (which was later confirmed by order dated December 14, 2006), there was no money in his account No. 91925 with the PICTET CIE Bank, Geneva. There is, therefore, no question of any withdrawals from that account after that date in violation of the court's orders. In support of the statement, Mr. Bhushan placed great reliance on the decision of the Swiss Supreme Court dated June 01, 2006. The decision of the Swiss Supreme Court indeed takes note of the fact that on November 29, 1995, the Petitioner (National Fertilizers Limited) paid a sum of $3,76,20,000 into Account No. 91923 held by Karsan Danismanlik Turizm Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited STI (shortly known as 'Karsan'). It then goes on to give a break up of the aforesaid sum of $3,76,20,000 from which, on the following day, i.e. on November 30, 1995, a sum of $2,81,00,000 was transferred to the contemnor's personal account No. 91925. From the Swiss Court decision, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledgement made by Pictet bank on September 30, 2002 according to which, on that date, a sum of US$ 10,763,412 was lying in account No. 91925 of Tuncay Alankus. Mr. Banerjee submitted that the aforesaid amount must have remained in the account until June 1, 2006, the date on which the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. Further, Pictet in its communication of January 8, 2007 had clearly acknowledged the sequestration order and had assured that it had taken good note of its contents. It is, therefore, not possible to believe that the account had come to nil on June 21, 2006 and it was closed on July 25, 2006. 35. In the letter of Pictet dated January 8, 2007, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure P15 (collectively) the debtor's name is given as Karsanrizm ; further, the letter does not state that on that date account No. 91925 in the name Alankus was alive and was bearing some amount. Moreover, the bank is not a party to the present proceedings and, therefore, we would not like to make any comment on the conduct of the bank. But on the materials produced before us, it is very difficult to hold the Respondent guilty of contempt and to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashi Gulati, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi, this Court held that burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, is the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings, for the reason that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. 39. In Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 530, this Court in paragraph 2 and 3 of the judgment held as under: 2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology he who asserts must prove has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the standard of proof , be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. Lord Denning (in Bramblevale Ltd., Re) lends concurrence to the aforesaid and the same reads as below: (All ER pp. 1063H-1064 C). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
