MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED versus MAHINDER C. MEHTA AND ORS.

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED versus MAHINDER C. MEHTA AND ORS.

Despite undertaking before the Supreme Court to comply with the Arbitrator's interim orders, the respondents neither furnished the required bank guarantee nor were candid about their inability and, moreover, misrepresented and suppressed material facts about their assets and rights in the property offered as security, thereby misleading the Court and committing gross contempt warranting punishment under Article 129 of the Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act, 1970.

Parties
Petitioner: Maruti Udyog Limited; Respondent No. 1/alleged Contemnor: Mahinder C. Mehta; Respondent/alleged Contemnor: Respondent No. 2; Respondent/alleged Contemnor: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) No. 289 of 2003 / Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 13305 of 2002 / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Contempt Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking, Contempt Jurisdiction Under Article 129, Arbitral Orders/interim Relief, Execution of Arbitral Award
Contempt of Court Arbitration Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Breach of Undertaking Contempt Jurisdiction Under Article 129 Arbitral Orders/interim Relief Execution of Arbitral Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maruti Udyog Limited

Petitioner

Mahinder C. Mehta

Respondent No. 1/alleged Contemnor

Respondent No. 2

Respondent/alleged Contemnor

Respondent No. 3

Respondent/alleged Contemnor

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) No. 289 of 2003 / Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 13305 of 2002 / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents committed contempt of the Supreme Court by not furnishing a bank guarantee as directed and by suppressing/misrepresenting facts to the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

Despite undertaking before the Supreme Court to comply with the Arbitrator's interim orders, the respondents neither furnished the required bank guarantee nor were candid about their inability and, moreover, misrepresented and suppressed material facts about their assets and rights in the property offered as security, thereby misleading the Court and committing gross contempt warranting punishment under Article 129 of the Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act, 1970.

Court Disposition

Contempt Petition allowed

Orders

  • Jurisdiction under Article 129 of Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 invoked.
  • Contemnor No. 1 (Managing Director) sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.