B.A Khan, J.— Respondents filed C 1578/99 challenging money decree passed by DRT. They also sought interim stay which was granted conditionally requiring him to deposit Rs. 13.05 lakhs within six weeks. They executed an undertaking for this whereby Rs. five lakhs were to be paid by them within two weeks and the balance in four weeks thereafter. They, however, failed to deposit resulting in vacation of stay order.
Petitioner Bank (respondent in CW) has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance of court order on plea that respondents had breached their undertaking. L/C for petitioner Mr. Vasudevan submitted that respondents had warded off execution of the decree on the strength of undertaking given by them to make deposit and once he had failed to act upon this undertaking, they had rendered themselves liable to contempt action.
Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, L/C. for respondents submitted that their undertaking to deposit Rs. 13 lakhs or so was in lieu of the stay of decree by the court and their failure to deposit had the natural consequence of vacating the stay order. The question of contempt would not arise, more so when it was open to petitioner Bank to execute the decree against respondents. He relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in R.N Dey and Others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others (2000) 4 SCC 400 laving down that weapon of contempt could not be used for purposes of executing a decree or im-plementing an order for which law provided appropriate procedure. He also disclosed that respondent's CW 1578/98 wherein conditional stay order was passed also stands dismissed.
As it is, respondent's undertaking requires to be seen and read in its proper context and perspective. They had executed it to meet the condition for grant of stay order and once they failed to adhere to its terms, it consequently led to vacation of the stay order obtained by them. The nature of undertaking executed by them was different than the usual undertaking given by an executant to do or refrain from doing something and in the later case an executant would render himself liable to action.
Respondent's undertaking in the present case, on the contrary, was offered to meet the condition for grant of stay order. It was a matter between them and the court and had nothing to do with petitioner Bank. In other words, the undertaking was not executed in favour of Bank but was given to obtain a conditional stay order and if respondents failed to abide by its terms, they would be deprived of the benefit of stay order thereby exposing themselves to execution to decree. This apart, it appears, that petitioner Bank was using contempt action either to bypass execution process or to use it as its substitute to ensure speedy recovery of its money which had nothing to do with the dignity or majesty of the court or its order. Needless to emphasis that contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemner and is not to be used for purposes of recovery of money or executing a decree, more so where a law provides a procedure or mechanism and alternative remedy for it.
Viewed thus, no case of contempt is made out. Petition is dismissed and proceedings against respondent dropped.