Case Note & Summary
The present show cause notice was issued against Rajeev M Dixit for breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator which was placed on the premises of a company under liquidation. The background is that in Company Petition No.129 of 1996, on 5.6.96 in Company Application No.182 of 1996, the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator in respect of certain machinery. Since it was not possible to separately identify those machineries, the Liquidator locked the factory premises on 10.6.98 and took possession. Subsequently, State Bank of India filed a suit and a Court Receiver was appointed. The applicants in Company Application No.40 of 2002 claimed that under a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 5.11.93, some machineries were given on hire purchase to the company. The respondent, Rajeev Dixit, broke open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator. The court examined whether this act constituted contempt of court. The court held that there was no specific order of the court prohibiting the respondent from breaking open the lock and seal. The act of the Official Liquidator in locking and sealing was an administrative act, not a judicial order. Therefore, the respondent's act did not amount to willful disobedience of any court order. The court discharged the show cause notice, holding that the contempt was not made out.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Willful Disobedience - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b) - The issue was whether breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator amounts to contempt. The court held that there was no specific order of the court prohibiting the respondent from breaking open the lock and seal. The act of the Official Liquidator in locking and sealing the premises was an administrative act, not a judicial order. Therefore, the respondent's act did not constitute willful disobedience of any order of the court. The contempt notice was discharged. (Paras 1-5) B) Contempt of Court - Mens Rea - Essential Element - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court emphasized that for an act to constitute contempt, there must be a deliberate and willful disobedience of a court order. In the absence of any specific order, the respondent's action, even if wrongful, does not attract contempt. The court noted that the respondent had a bona fide belief that he was entitled to take possession. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator placed on the premises of a company under liquidation constitutes contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The show cause notice is discharged. The contempt proceedings against Rajeev Dixit are dropped.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 2(b) - Civil contempt requires willful disobedience of a court order
- breaking open lock and seal of Official Liquidator without court order does not amount to contempt if no specific order prohibits such act
- Official Liquidator's possession is not equivalent to court order
- mens rea is essential for contempt.
