LAW FOR ALL

contempt petition = At first sight the conduct of the respondent may indeed appear contumacious but, a careful scrutiny of the material facts makes it clear that respondent No.1 cannot really be held guilty of contempt.= 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 the PICTET& CIE, Geneva. However, one thing is clear from the decision of the Swiss Court; that is, on November 30, 1995, a sum of $2,81,00,000 was credited to the contemnor's personal account from the amount deposited by the petitioner in the account of Karsan. We would like to see the bank statement of the contemnor's Account No. 91925 held with PICTET & CIE Bank from November 30, 1995 till the date of the closure of the account on July 25, 2006 to see the inflow and outflow of money from that account. a copy of the bank statement certified by Pictet and Cie bank, Geneva. From the bank statement it appears that the entire amount in account No.91925 was withdrawn by June 21, 2006 and on that date, the balance had become nil. The bank has also issued a certificate dated September 13, 2010 stating that account No.91925 was closed in their books on July 25, 2006. = In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with Pictet in violation of this Court’s orders. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the respondent cannot be held guilty of contempt. 44. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court held that the respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet by flouting the orders of this Court, it is to be noted that that order is founded on the premise that the respondent had not denied the allegation made by the petitioner against him. It is, however, to be noted that the respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under: “The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 45. The order dated April 1, 2010, was, thus, clearly based on an erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled. 46. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the contempt petition. It is dismissed.