IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2004

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

1. Shri P.N. Bachtti,

The Assistant Collector of Customs,
Bond Department,
New Customs House,
Ballard Estate,
Bombay-400 038.

2. Mr. N.K.P. Thakur,

The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi.

3. Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, Sr, Manager,

Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi. … Contemnors/
Respondents

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

1
 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

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

2
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.

(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 is 5.7.1991 from the expiry of three months

from the date of bonding of the goods in warehouse.

[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

3
 inasmuch as it provides for interest for the period from 16.06.1989

to 05.07.1990 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

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/2.

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

Hon’ble Court was pleased 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]

4
4. 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.

5. In pursuance of the said order of this Hon’ble Court, the Petitioners

approached the Customs Authorities requesting him that the bank

guarantees submitted by the Petitioner bearing Nos. 1/91 to 7/91 totalling

Rs.11,42,861/- issued by the erstwhile New Bank of India, Fatehpuri

Branch, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6, now, Punjab National Bank, Chandni

Chowk, Delhi-6 has since been discharged the Hon’ble High Court

therefore kindly cancel the said bank guarantees and inform the Punjab

National Bank Branch Chandni Chowk. The Petitioner further wrote a

letter to the Manager Punjab National Bank Chandni Chowk requesting

him to cancel the aforesaid bank guarantee and release the FDR’s

pledged with you as margin money together with interest thereon.

Subsequently the Petitioner further wrote a letter dated 8 th September,

2003 alongwith certified copy of orders dated 14 th August, 2003 and 29th

August, 2003.

6. Thereafter on 16th January, 2004 The Chief Manager Punjab

National Bank sent a letter to the Petitioner intimating him to deposit the

balance commission to enable them to get the needful done. Pursuant

thereto the Petitioner submitted the balance commission amounting to Rs.

1,49,900/-, vide D.D No.107577 drawn on Canara Bank. The Petitioner

has also given the indemnity bound as required by them. It is pertinent

to mention here that before this Bank Draft the petitioner has already

given a Bank Draft of Rs. 2 lacs before that towards the Commission.

5
7. It is further submitted that the Petitioners on 28 th March, 2004

requested the bank i.e the contemnor No.2 and 3 hearing to release the

bank guarantees and 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 completely. True copies of the correspondence exchanged between

the Petitioner and contemnor are hereto marked and annexed as

ANNEXURE-P/3 (Colly) .

8. It is further submitted that since this Hon’ble Court was pleased to

discharge the Bank guarantee therefore holding of the said 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, totally illegal and the

same is willful disobedience of this Hon’ble Courts order dated 14.8.2003

and 29.8.2003.

8. However the contemnors by one pretext or other had not yet

complied with the express directions of the Hon’ble Court willfully and

deliberately which is amounting to contempt of this Hon’ble Courts order

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

9. 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:

6
[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 even after

elapse of considerable time.

[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
April 2004

7
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2004

IN
WP [C] NO.1648 OF 1991

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand, … Petitioner

VERSUS

Shri P.N. Bchatti & Anr. … Contemnors

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Naveen Bansal s/o, Suresh Chand Bansal, Manager/Parokar, M/s.

Ghanshyam Dass Suresh Chand, having its registered office at: A-8
Green Park Extension New Delhi-110016, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under :

1. That I am the Manager/Parokar of the Petitioner-firm in the

above mentioned matter and am therefore competent to file
this Affidavit in this case in support of the present
Contempt Petition.

2. That I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the

present case and am, therefore, also competent to swear
the present Affidavit.

3. That I have read and understood the contents of the

accompanying Contempt Petition ,the contents of which are
true and correct to my knowledge and information.

4. That the documents annexed to the Petition are true copies

of the their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this th day of April, 2004 that the

contents of my above Affidavit are true and correct and that
nothing false has been stated therein.

DEPONENT

8
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2004
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

1. Shri P.N. Bachtti,

The Assistant Collector of Customs,
Bond Department,
New Customs House,
Ballard Estate,
Bombay-400 038.

5. Mr. N.K.P. Thakur,

The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi.

6. Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, Sr, Manager,

Punjab National Bank,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
New Delhi. … Contemnors/Respondents

FILED BY:

Ms. Namrata Chopra

INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
16, TODARMAL ROAD,
NEAR BENGALI MARKET
NEW DELHI -110001
New Delhi
April ,2004

9
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CONT. CAS [C] No. OF 2004

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, … Petitioner

Versus

Shri P.N. Bachtti, …Contemnor/

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 C.W.P.
No.1648/1991 on 29.8.2003 with Affidavit.

5. ANNEXURE-P/1 (Colly)
True copies of the orders dated 14.8.2003 and 9 – 15
29.8.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

10
 6. ANNEXURE-P/2
True copy of the CM No.9691/2003 in Writ Petition 16 – 19
No.1648/1991.
7. ANNEXURE-P/3 (Colly)
True copies of the correspondence exchanged 20 - 27
between the Petitioner and contemnor

8. Vakalatnama 28

FILED BY:

UDAY KUMAR/NAMRATA CHOPRA

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

April 24, 2004

11
12