National Fertilizers Limited Petitioner/ v. Tuncay Alankus And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Contempt Petition (C) No. 320 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2006, decided on April 1, 2010

Disposition

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant: ----- For the Respondents: -----

Judges

Justice Markandey Katju
Justice C.K. Prasad
Justice A.K. Patnaik

Acts

Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court 1975, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Respondent 1, Mr. Tuncay Alankus. Earlier interim and subsequent orders of the Supreme Court dated 4-9-2006 and 14-12-2006 in SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 (Central Bureau of Investigation v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 611) had restrained the respondent from withdrawing any money from his Swiss bank accounts at Pictet & Cie Bank, Geneva, until disposal of the matter.

The contempt petition alleges that, despite these explicit restraints, the respondent withdrew approximately USD 11 million from the said accounts. Notice of contempt was issued; the respondent filed a reply that did not deny the withdrawal. The Court therefore proceeded to determine whether the respondent was guilty of wilful disobedience of its orders.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Respondent 1 wilfully violated the Supreme Court’s orders dated 4-9-2006 and 14-12-2006 restraining him from withdrawing funds from his Swiss bank accounts.
If so, whether such violation amounts to contempt of court warranting punishment under Article 129 of the Constitution and the applicable contempt rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Relied on a letter dated 9-3-2009 from Pictet & Cie Bank confirming substantial withdrawals by the respondent, showing violation of the Court’s orders.
Contended that the respondent’s conduct constituted wilful disobedience and undermined the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court.
Sought directions for restoration of the withdrawn amount and punishment for contempt.

Respondent's Position

Filed a reply to the contempt notice but did not deny that he had withdrawn money in contravention of the Court’s restraint orders.
Offered what the Court characterised as “frivolous and false excuses,” which the Court rejected.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 611 (orders dated 4-9-2006 & 14-12-2006)	The Court’s own prior interim and final restraint orders prohibiting withdrawal of funds from Swiss bank accounts.	Found that the respondent had breached these very orders; the violation formed the basis for holding him in contempt.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After reviewing the petition, documentary evidence (notably the Swiss bank’s letter), and the respondent’s reply, the Court concluded:

The evidence “clearly” established that the respondent withdrew funds totalling about USD 11 million despite explicit restraint orders.
The respondent’s reply failed to deny the core allegation, reinforcing the inference of wilful disobedience.
Such conduct demonstrated “no respect or regard” for the authority of the Supreme Court; hence contempt was made out.
The Court emphasised it would “not tolerate” attempts to undermine its authority and that any excuses offered were frivolous.

Holding and Implications

The Court held Respondent 1 guilty of contempt of court. Sentencing was deferred to 12-4-2010, with an express indication that if the respondent restores the withdrawn funds by that date, the Court may reconsider its order on sentencing.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the respondent faces punitive sanctions unless he deposits the misappropriated USD 11 million. The order reinforces the Supreme Court’s power to protect the efficacy of its own judgments but does not create new substantive precedent beyond affirming existing contempt jurisprudence.

Show full summary ...

National Fertilizers Limited Petitioner/ v. Tuncay Alankus And Another

Order

1. This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 against Respondent 1, Tuncay Alankus for flouting the orders of this Court dated 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 read with order dated 14-12-2006 in CBI v. Tuncay Alankus (2013) 9 SCC 611. It is further prayed in the petition that the contemnor be directed to restore the amount in Swiss Bank i.e Pictet and CIE Bank, Geneva. By order dated 14-12-2006 (2013) 9 SCC 611, the interim order dated 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 was made absolute to the effect that Respondent 1 contemnor is restrained from withdrawing the amount from his accounts in a Swiss Bank till the decision of the matter.

2. Full facts have been mentioned in the contempt petition and hence we are not repeating the same here. It is alleged in the contempt petition that despite the orders of this Court dated 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 and 14-12-2006 (2013) 9 SCC 611 restraining Respondent 1 contemnor from withdrawing any sums from his accounts in a Swiss Bank till the decision in the matter, he has withdrawn huge amounts running into millions of dollars from Swiss Bank i.e Pictet and CIE Bank, Geneva. In this behalf Mr Gourab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a letter dated 9-3-2009 from Pictet and CIE Bank, Geneva wherein it is mentioned that the amounts have been withdrawn from the said Bank.

3. From a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that these allegations are correct and that Respondent 1 contemnor has wilfully flouted the orders dated 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 and 14-12-2006 (2013) 9 SCC 611 of this Court and that he has no respect or regard for this Court at all. Respondent 1 contemnor thinks that he can take this Court for a ride by making frivolous and false excuses for disobeying our orders. We make it clear that this Court will not tolerate any such move of Respondent 1 contemnor.

4. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notice it was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is that he has violated the order of this Court dated 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005. In fact, Respondent 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 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005.

5. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material on the record to suggest that Respondent 1 contemnor has committed contempt of court. Therefore, we hold the contemnor guilty of contempt of court. In fact, even today, the contemnor is not prepared to return the money which he has withdrawn from his accounts in Swiss Bank. We are informed that Respondent 1 contemnor has withdrawn about 11 million dollars. Thus, there is no option but to punish him for contempt of court.

6. List this matter on Monday, 12-4-2010 for passing the sentence on the contemnor. We make it clear that if by the said date, the contemnor deposits the amounts withdrawn by him, we may consider recalling our order passed today.

National Fertilizers Limited Petitioner/ v. Tuncay Alankus And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Respondent's Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

National Fertilizers Limited Petitioner/ v. Tuncay Alankus And Another

Comments