9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to Contempt of Court. 2. Whether the application for contempt was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the filing of the application dated December 14, 1972, constituted a specific act of contempt. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to Contempt of Court. The respondents, M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, represented by Om Prakash Agrawal, engaged in a series of legal maneuvers to circumvent orders from both the Patna and Calcutta High Courts. They filed multiple applications before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court to nullify or circumvent orders from Division Benches, thereby obstructing the due course of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that "abuse of the process of the Court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice... is a contempt of Court." The respondents' actions were deemed to be a "daring 'raid' on the Court" and an abuse of the judicial process, thus constituting Criminal Contempt u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Issue 2: Whether the application for contempt was barred by limitation. The Patna High Court dismissed the State of Bihar's application for contempt on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court held that the material allegation related to the filing of the application dated April 7, 1971, which was beyond the limitation period. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the continuous contumacious conduct of the respondents should be taken into account, particularly the application dated December 14, 1972. Issue 3: Whether the filing of the application dated December 14, 1972, constituted a specific act of contempt. The Supreme Court found that the application dated December 14, 1972, was an abuse of the process of the Court, intended to obstruct the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau. The Court noted that this application was made despite an earlier order from the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court permitting the money suit to proceed. The Supreme Court held that the filing of this application was a clear act of Criminal Contempt of Court, as it was calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceeding and the administration of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondents guilty of Criminal Contempt of Court. The respondents' conduct was deemed reprehensible, warranting condemnation by the imposition of a sentence. Each respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of which they would undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The appeal was thus allowed.
|
