- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
National Fertilizers Limited Petitioner/ v. Tuncay Alankus And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court of India had earlier passed an interim injunction on 4-9-2006 in SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 restraining the contemnor, Mr. Tuncay Alankus, from withdrawing any money from his Account No. 91925 with Pictet & CIE Bank, Geneva. That injunction was later confirmed by an order dated 14-12-2006 (2013) 9 SCC 611.
In the present contempt proceedings, the core dispute concerns whether funds were actually available in the account on the date of the injunction and, if so, whether any withdrawals were made in violation of the Court’s order.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate for the contemnor, asserted that the account was empty when the injunction was issued and that it had been formally closed on 25-7-2006. The petitioner, National Fertilizers Ltd. (NFL), represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Gourab Banerji, disputed this assertion and maintained that substantial sums remained in the account at the relevant time.
Upon reviewing the documentary material—including a Swiss Supreme Court decision dated 1-6-2006, earlier Indian court orders, and bank certificates—the Supreme Court found it could not conclusively determine the balance in the account on 4-9-2006. The Court therefore directed production of full bank statements for the period 30-11-1995 to 25-7-2006 and adjourned the matter for six weeks.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on 4-9-2006—the date of the Supreme Court’s interim injunction—any funds remained in Tuncay Alankus’s Account No. 91925 with Pictet & CIE Bank, Geneva.
- If funds were present, whether any withdrawals or transfers were made after the injunction in contravention of the Court’s order.
Arguments of the Parties
Contemnor’s Arguments (Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate)
- Contended that Account No. 91925 held no money on 4-9-2006; hence no withdrawal could have violated the injunction.
- Relied on the Swiss Supreme Court decision dated 1-6-2006, which recorded transfers ending with the account allegedly bereft of funds.
- Produced a bank certificate stating that the account was formally closed on 25-7-2006.
- Sought additional time to obtain and file full bank statements covering the relevant period.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Mr. Gourab Banerji, Additional Solicitor General for National Fertilizers Ltd.)
- Asserted that substantial money remained in the account on 4-9-2006.
- Relied on (i) the bail order dated 24-6-1996 of the Special Judge, Delhi, and (ii) a bank certificate dated 30-9-2002 (Annexure P-3) showing significant balances.
- Maintained that the contemnor’s assertion of an empty account was unsubstantiated.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Swiss Supreme Court Decision dated 1-6-2006 | Recorded the movement of funds from National Fertilizers Ltd. to Karsan (Account No. 91923) and then to the contemnor’s Account No. 91925. | Used to assess whether funds existed in the contemnor’s account when the Indian injunction was issued; Court found it inconclusive on that point. |
| Supreme Court of India Order dated 14-12-2006 ((2013) 9 SCC 611) | Confirmed the interim injunction of 4-9-2006. | Established that the restraint on withdrawals remained operative; forms the basis of the present contempt inquiry. |
| Order of the Special Judge, Delhi (24-6-1996) | Granted bail to the contemnor and referred to the existence of funds in the relevant account. | Cited by the petitioner to show that significant sums had historically been present in the account. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully examined the documents put forward by both sides. While the Swiss Supreme Court’s judgment confirmed that USD 28.1 million was transferred into the contemnor’s account on 30-11-1995, it did not conclusively establish the account balance on 4-9-2006. The bank certificate indicating closure of the account on 25-7-2006, and the petitioner’s contrary evidence suggesting substantial funds, left the Court unable to reach a definitive conclusion.
Because the materials were inadequate to resolve the controversy, the Court deemed it essential to view the complete bank statement for Account No. 91925 from 30-11-1995 until its closure on 25-7-2006. This would allow verification of both the inflow and outflow of funds, thereby clarifying whether the contemnor disobeyed the injunction. Accordingly, on counsel’s request, the Court granted six weeks’ time to produce the statement.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The contemnor is directed to file the full bank statement for Account No. 91925 with Pictet & CIE Bank, Geneva, covering 30-11-1995 to 25-7-2006. The matter is adjourned for six weeks, and a copy of the order shall be supplied to counsel for the contemnor.
Implications: The decision postpones any final finding of contempt until the bank records are examined. No new legal precedent is set; the immediate effect is a procedural directive aimed at gathering evidence necessary to resolve the contempt allegation.
Order
1. Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate appearing for the contemnor, Tuncay Alankus, stated that on 4-9-2006 SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 when this Court passed the interim order of injunction against his client (which was later confirmed by order dated 14-12-2006 (2013) 9 SCC 611), there was no money in his Account No. 91925 with Pictet and CIE Bank, Geneva. There is, therefore, no question of any withdrawals from that account after that date in violation of the Court's orders.
2. In support of the statement, Mr Bhushan placed great reliance on the decision of the Swiss Supreme Court dated 1-6-2006. The decision of the Swiss Supreme Court indeed takes note of the fact that on 29-11-1995, the petitioner (National Fertilizers Ltd.) paid a sum of $37,620,000 into Account No. 91923 held by Karsan Danismanlik Turizm Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd. STI (shortly known as “Karsan”). It then goes on to give a break-up of the aforesaid sum of $37,620,000 from which, on the following day i.e on 30-11-1995, a sum of $28,100,000 was transferred to the contemnor's personal Account No. 91925. From the Swiss Court decision, it is not clear that on the date this Court passed the injunction order restraining the contemnor from withdrawing any amount from his account, the account was already bereft of any money.
3. Mr Bhushan also relied upon a certificate issued by the Bank, according to which the account in question was closed on 25-7-2006.
4. Mr Gourab Banerji, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on the date this Court passed the interim order SLP (Cri) No. 6291 of 2005 against the contemnor, there was substantial money in his account. In support of this averment, he referred to the order dated 24-6-1996 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, granting bail to the contemnor and a certificate dated 30-9-2002 issued by the Bank (a copy of which is at Annexure P-3 of the contempt petition).
5. On the basis of the materials so far produced before us, we are not satisfied and we find it difficult to hold with any conviction that on the date the interim order of injunction was passed against the contemnor, there was, in fact, no money in his account with Pictet and CIE Bank, Geneva. However, one thing is clear from the decision of the Swiss Court; that is, on 30-11-1995, a sum of $28,100,000 was credited to the contemnor's personal account from the amount deposited by the petitioner in the account of Karsan.
6. We would like to see the bank statement of the contemnor's Account No. 91925 held with Pictet and CIE Bank from 30-11-1995 till the date of the closure of the account on 25-7-2006 to see the inflow and outflow of money from that account. Mr Bhushan prays for some time for producing the bank statement. As prayed by him, put up after six weeks.
7. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the contemnor.
Alert