JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. These contempt proceedings arise from an order of this Court dated 02.02.2011 passed in Co.Pet. 115/1991 in the matter of Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd., by which this Court took suo moto cognizance of the certain accusations made against Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain (hereinafter “the contemnor”). 2. Before addressing the charge of contempt, a background of the facts that led to the accusation and the charge is important. Mr. Jain was the Director of Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. (hereinafter “the company”), a private limited company incorporated on 24th October, 1969, (though subsequently converted into a Public Limited Company from 29th May, 1970) for the setting up of a project for manufacture of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (Vanaspati) and Refined Oils, with an installed capacity of 50 TPD, located in the outskirts of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. While the company performed well till 1980, its performance deteriorated sharply during the year 1981, as it also started to incur losses. This eventually led to the suspension of manufacturing activities from October, 1983. 3. Subsequent changes in the export policy did not assist matters, with the company’s net worth getting eroded 24 times by 1986, by its (the company’s) own admission in its additional objections in C.P. No. 115/1991, dated 17.01.2000. Accordingly, the company became a sick unit and thus, a reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which was registered by the BIFR on 17th May, 1988. 4. Concurrently, the Punjab Sind Bank (hereinafter “PSB”), one of the company’s secured creditors (and mortgagee of the companies’ properties bearing No. A1, A3 & A3/1, Industrial Area, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, UP, hereafter “the Ghaziabad property”) filed two recovery suits against the company in liquidation: the first being Suit No. 2147/1986 for recovery of Rs. 4,50,76,141.84/- with interest and costs, filed on the file of this Court and later transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (registered as OA No. 341/1995), and the second, Suit No. 2194/1986 for recovery of Rs. 8,16,58,516.84/- with interest and costs, again filed on the file of this Court and later transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (registered as OA No. 1250/1995). 5. The controversy leading to the present contempt proceedings arises in respect of the company’s two applications, C.A. Nos. 8,16,58,516.84/- with interest and costs, again filed on the file of this Court and later transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (registered as OA No. 1250/1995). 5. The controversy leading to the present contempt proceedings arises in respect of the company’s two applications, C.A. Nos. 562- 63/2008 in C.P. No. 115/1991. In the liquidation proceedings before the High Court, by an order dated 13th March, 2008, this Court had issued a sale proclamation for sale of the Ghaziabad property as well as for the plant and machinery in the premises. This sale was to be conducted on 29th May, 2008. However, this order of 13th March 2008 was recalled by an order of 27th May, 2008 on the basis of the two applications (CP Nos 562-63) filed by Mr. Jain, as an ex-director of the company in liquidation. That order, in its operative part, noted as follows: “27.5.2008 Present: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Luthra for official liquidator. Co.A.No.562-63/2008 in the matter of Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/exmanagement and Mr. Luthra on behalf of the O. L. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 13.3.2008 had been passed in chambers without notice or information to the ex-management. By that order sale proclamation had been issued for 29.5.2008. The applicant came to know of the same upon noticing the proclamation as published in the newspapers. Mr. Rawal, learned senior counsel argues that till date the liability of the company qua the secured creditors is not ascertained, inasmuch as, the proceedings filed by Punjab and Sind Bank before the DRT are still pending. There is no ascertained debt of the said bank. So far as the claim of the workmen is concerned, it is the case of the ex-management that a memorandum of’ settlement has already been arrived at with them. Mr. Rawal further submits that the property proposed to be auctioned is extremely valuable and there will be no necessity of selling the said valuable assets of the company to meet the eventual liability that the company may have to be discharged. He further submits that the Court has already directed sale of steel drums of the company and they are likely to fetch substantial amount, since prices of stainless steel have gone up in the market substantially. He further submits that the Court has already directed sale of steel drums of the company and they are likely to fetch substantial amount, since prices of stainless steel have gone up in the market substantially. Last but not the least, Mr. Rawal submits that the applicant is not only willing to meet whatever expenses the office of the official liquidator and/or the secured creditors have incurred on account of publication etc. of the sale proclamation/advertisements by the official liquidator/secured creditors in its entirety, they are also willing to deposit, with the official liquidator, amounts as may be directed by this Court to show the bona fide and seriousness of the ex-management to meet its liability, if any, and to revive the company. Considering the aforesaid submissions and subject to the condition that the applicant makes an account deposit by 1 a. m. on 29.5.2008 with the official liquidator vide a pay order of Rs.2 lakhs. drawn in favour of Official Liquidator towards the expenses incurred in the publication of the sale proclamation, and further deposits an amount of Rs. 1.5 crore within two months with the O.L., the order dated 13.3.2008, issuance of sale proclamation is recalled. Applications stand disposed of.