Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to contempt petitions filed against M/s Writers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (WPL) alleging willful disobedience of court orders in the revival of Super Bazar, a multi-state cooperative society that was wound up in 2002. The background involves the winding up of Super Bazar due to financial losses, followed by a revival process supervised by the Supreme Court. In 2009, the Court accepted WPL's bid for revival, requiring WPL to invest ₹504 crore and re-employ workers. WPL made payments to workers and deposited amounts as directed. However, disputes arose regarding additional demands by workers and EPFO summons. The contempt petitions alleged that WPL failed to comply with orders regarding payment of dues and continuation of employment. The Court examined whether there was willful disobedience. It noted that WPL had substantially complied with orders, paid ₹30.16 crore to workers, deposited ₹14.84 crore in the Court registry, and paid provident fund contributions. The Court found no contumacious conduct and dismissed the contempt petitions, clarifying that any remaining disputes could be agitated in appropriate proceedings. The judgment also discusses the legal effect of winding up on employment and the scope of Article 142 in implementing revival schemes.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - Allegations of willful disobedience of court orders in implementing revival scheme for Super Bazar - Court held that WPL substantially complied with orders and there was no willful or contumacious disobedience - Contempt petitions dismissed (Paras 1-30).
B) Company Law - Revival Scheme - Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - Sections 78, 79 - Winding up of Super Bazar and subsequent revival through bid process - Court accepted bid of WPL and directed revival - Held that revival scheme was implemented under court supervision and WPL made payments as directed (Paras 5-10).
C) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F, 25N - Termination of services of employees upon winding up - Court held that winding up order operates as notice of discharge and employer-employee relationship snaps (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether WPL committed willful disobedience of the orders of this Court in the implementation of the revival scheme for Super Bazar, warranting contempt action.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, holding that there was no willful or contumacious disobedience of its orders by WPL. The Court noted that WPL had substantially complied with the directions and that any remaining disputes could be agitated in appropriate proceedings.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- willful disobedience
- revival scheme
- winding up
- Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act
- 2002
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Article 142
- Article 136
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
Case Details
CONMT. PET. (C) Nos. 1665-1666 of 2017 in IA Nos 102-103 of 2017 in SLP (C) Nos 8398-8399 of 2005
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
M/s Writers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Dr AK Mishra, Official Liquidator
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petitions alleging willful disobedience of court orders in the implementation of a revival scheme for a wound-up multi-state cooperative society.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought action for contempt against WPL for alleged non-compliance with court orders regarding payment of dues and continuation of employment of workers.
Filing Reason
Alleged willful disobedience of orders passed by the Supreme Court in the revival of Super Bazar, including failure to pay amounts due to workers and to comply with directions regarding employment.
Previous Decisions
The winding up order was upheld by the Delhi High Court on 19 December 2003. The Supreme Court accepted WPL's bid for revival on 26 February 2009. Various interim orders were passed regarding payment to workers and constitution of committees.
Issues
Whether WPL committed willful disobedience of court orders in the implementation of the revival scheme for Super Bazar.
Whether the contempt petitions should be dismissed for lack of contumacious conduct.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that WPL failed to comply with orders regarding payment of ₹54.31 crore to workers and continuation of employment for three years.
WPL contended that it had substantially complied with all orders, paid ₹30.16 crore to workers, deposited ₹14.84 crore in court, and paid provident fund contributions. It argued that there was no willful disobedience.
Ratio Decidendi
For contempt to be established, there must be willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order. Substantial compliance and absence of contumacious conduct negate contempt. The revival scheme was implemented under court supervision, and WPL made payments as directed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Winding Up of Super Bazar... fell on bad days.
Legal position, not disputed by any of the counsel... that with the winding up of Super Bazar, by operation of law, Super Bazar closed down.
The court stated that its order was in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India, with the object of ensuring the revival of Super Bazar.
Procedural History
Super Bazar was wound up on 5 July 2002. The winding up order was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 5 November 2002 and by the Delhi High Court on 19 December 2003. The Supreme Court entertained SLPs and on 26 February 2009 accepted WPL's bid for revival. Various interim orders were passed regarding payment to workers. Contempt petitions were filed in 2017 alleging non-compliance.
Acts & Sections
- Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002: 78, 79
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25F, 25N
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: 7A
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 2(b)
- Constitution of India: 136, 142
