ICICI BANK LTD  Vs MANISH GOEL & ORS.

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 1 of 8

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05th January, 2021
+ CONT.CAS(C) 320/2020 & CM APPLN. 13548/2020

ICICI BANK LTD … Petitioner
versus
MANISH GOEL & ORS ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Puneet K. Bhalla and Ms. ChetnaBhalla, Advocates. .
For the Respondent : Mr. Yatish Kumar Goel, Advocate for R -1& 2 and R -3 in
person
CORAM: –
HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of
Court sAct, 1971 against the Respondent s for having wilfully
disobeyed the order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C)
102/2019 , where byRespondent s were restrained from writing any
email or from filing any complaint against the petitioner bank and its
officers .
2. As per the Petitioner , after the passing of the order dated
30.04.2019, though Respondent sNo. 1 and 2 did not write any em ail
or approach any for um against the petitioner , howev er, Respondent
No. 3 who is the brother of Respondent No. 1 and son of Respondent
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 2 of 8

No. 2 and also their advoca te, started writing emails on their behalf.
3. Petitioner bank had filed a suit against the resp ondents being
CS. No. 1526 of 2018. By order dated 03.05. 2018 , the court restrained
the respondents from writing any email or complaint against the
petitioner bank before different fora or authorities.
4. It is contended that R espondent No. 3 intentionally, knowin gly,
and willingly in wilful defiance of order dated 03.05. 2018 started
writing emails, raising false and frivolous disputes and allegations
against the petitioner bank before different authorities.
5. It is contended that the petitioner bank thereafter filed a petition
under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court A ct, 1971 which was listed
on 30.10. 2018 before the Trial Judge. The court issued notice to show
cause to the Respondents and despite being put to notice , Respondents
did not stop writing false and frivolous mails. It is contended that Respondent No. 3 wrote emails on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2
with the ir knowledge and consent.
6. It is contended that despite the restraint,R espondents did not
refrain from their conduct and accordingly ,Petitioner bank filed a
fresh contempt petition before this court (Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019) and also filed an application seeking restraint against the respondent
from writing emails/raising any grievance before different forums quathe loan account number LBDEL0000747368 .
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 3 of 8

7. This court , by order dated 14.02. 2019 in Cont. Cas. (C)
102/2019 ,issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why
contempt proceedings under section 12 of the C ontempt of Court s Act
be not initiated against them and adjourned the c ase to 20 .03.2019. On
20.03. 2019, despite service, none appeared for the Respondents and
accordingly , bailable warrants were issued returnable for 30.04. 2019.
8. On 30 .04.2019 , in the presence of the Respondents, this court
once again directed respondents not to write any email/complaints
against the petitioner bank to different for ums.
9. It is contended that R espondents , in complete defiance of order
dated 30 .04.2019 , again sent defamatory emails on 15.06.2020 to the
petitioner bank and on this occasion even made false allegations
against the advocates representing the petitioner bank. It is contended
that this conduct was once again repeated on 17.06. 2020. As su ch, the
petitioner has filed this petition seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents for wilful breach of order dated 30.04. 2019.
10. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents on
29.06. 2020. By order dated 29.06. 2020, this court also restrained the
respondents from committing any further breach of order dated 30.04. 2019 passed in Cont . Cas. (C) 102/2019 .
11. No reply has been filed to the petition by Respondent sNo. 1 and
3. Reply has been fined only by Respondent No. 2. R espondent No. 2
has filed his reply through Respondent No. 3 as his advocate .
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 4 of 8

12. On 20.07. 2020, Respondent No. 3 appeared i n person also and
sought time to file reply, but no reply has been filed by him. On the
other hand, he has filed a reply as an advocate for Respondent No. 2
on 27.07.2020.
13. On 19.08.20 20, Respondent No. 3 made a statement that no
separate reply was to be f iled by Respondent No. 1 and 3 and they
adopted the reply filed by Respondent No. 2.
14. In the Reply filed by the Respondent No. 2 and adopted by
Respondent No. 1 & 3, no response has been given to the contention s
of the Petitioner raised in the petition that the Respondents despite
there being a restraint from writing any email or make any
representation to any forum , in respect of the subject loan account,
have been writing emails making false allegations.
15. On the other hand, R espondent s have so ught to justify their
conduct. No explanation has been given by the R espondent s as to why
they did not comply with the order and refrain from writing any email.
It is contended by the Respondents that they are justif ied in making
the re presentations /complain t to the senior management of the bank as
it is their legal right. It is contended that the order was obtained by
fraud and is void.
16. It is contended by the R espondent s that an order of stay comes
to an end on the expiry of 6 months unless extended by a speaking
order. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 5 of 8

Asia Resurfacing Agency Private Limited versus Central B ureau of
Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299.
17. It is contended by the Respondent s that they are victims of
fraud and forgery committed by senior bank officials for which they
have already been summoned in a complaint case filed under S ection
420 I ndian Penal Code . It is contended that the advocates appearing
for the petitioner are filing m ultiple petitions on the same cause of
action with the sole objective and purpose , to pressurise and compel
the respondents to withdraw the criminal case in which Senior bank
officer s have been summoned.
18. Apart from attempting to justify the ir conduct , the Respondent s
have not even responded to any of the allegations made in the petition.
19. One of the contention s raised by the R espondent s is that the
injunction order , restraining the respondent from writing any email or
from filing any further complaint, was p assed in Civil Suit No.
1789 /15, which S uit was dismissed in default on 20.12.2016 and
thereaft er, another suit on the same cause of action beingSuit No.
1526/ 2018, was filed and an injunction order was obtained in the said
Suit also.
20. It is contended that Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019 was filed alleging
breach of the injunction order dated 10.06.2015 passed in Civil Suit
No. 1789 /2015 , which Suit stands dismissed in default on 20.12.2016
and as such, the restraint order does not survive.
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 6 of 8

21. To a scertain the veracity of the allegation made by the
Respondent s, records of Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019 was summoned by
this Court. Perusal of records of Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019 shows that
said contempt petition was not filed because of wilful breach of order
dated 10 .06.2015 passed in C ivil Suit No. 1789 /2015 but was filed for
the wilful default and violation of order dated 0 3.05.2018 passed in
Civil Suit No. 1526 /2018.
22. It is an admitted position that Civil Suit No. 1526/ 2018 is still
pendin g, and the interim order dated 0 3.05.2018 , passed therein, is
still subsisting.
23. Reliance placed by the R espondent s on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Asia Resurfacing Agency Private Limited (supra) is
not applicable in the facts of the present case , in as much as in Asia
Resurfacing Agency Private Limited (supra) , the Supreme Court has
held that stay of proceedings should not continue beyond a period of 6
months. In the present case, there is no stay of proceedings and as
such,the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case .
24. By order dated 30.04. 2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019,
this court had directed as under:
“Since, the matter is subjudice , the respondents are
restrained from further writing any email/complaint
against the petitioner bank to different forums with regard to the agreement of home loan bearing No.
LBDEL0000747368 entered between the respondent No.
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 7 of 8

1 &2 and the petitioner bank, till the next date of
hearing.”

25. The grievance raised by the Petitioner bank is with regard to
repeated defiance by the Respondents of the restraint imposed upon
them , from writing any email or approaching any forum with regard to
the subject loan account.
26. Despite there being an injunction , restraining the R espondents
from writing any email, respondents continue to write email s to
several entities and individuals . Reference is drawn to emails dated
15.06. 2020 and 17.06.2020 . (annexed as annexure E (C olly) to the
petition).
27. No explanation is forthcoming from the Respondents as to why
they did not restrain from writing the said email s despite having been
restrained by order dated 30.04. 2019 from doing so. On the other
hand,R espondents have attempted to justify their conduct and the
emails on merit. In case the Respondent had any grievance,
respondent should have approached the said court for vacation of the
injunction order.
28. So long as the order is in force , Respondents have to abide with
the same. Clearly, respondents have wilfully committed breach of the
restraint order dated 30.04.2019 passed against them.
29. Not only have the respondents committed breach of the restraint
2021:DHC:17

CONT. CAS. (C) 320 of 2020 Page 8 of 8

order dated 30.04. 2019, but respondents have also sought to justify
their conduct in writing the emails dated 14.06.2020 and 17 .06.2020.
30. Clearly, respondents have wilfully disobeyed order of th is
Court dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019.
31. Accordingly, notice of contempt is issued to the Respondents to
show cause as to why they should not be punished for having wilfully
disobeyed order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019 .
Reply to the Show Cause Notice be filed within four weeks.
32. List on 09.02.2021 for further procee dings . Respondents shall
be personally present on the said date.
33. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 05 , 2021
HJ

2021:DHC:17