(India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P.F.C. & Ors
 INSC 663 (13 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 304 JT 1995 (8) 405 1995 SCALE (6)486
O R D
Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, [(1993) 2 SCC 279] has laid down the law as to
how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial
corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid
down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with
those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid
down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for
conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to
law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) is the law under
Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law, But, if
there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this
Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not
by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.
these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to
issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it
would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.
contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.