2017 (9) TMI 255 - HC - Indian Laws

Allegations levelled against the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department - Contempt of Courts - Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta states that although he is willing to withdraw some allegations on his own, and has already done so, he is not willing to withdraw all the allegations levelled against the lawyers representing the Revenue Department - Held that - Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta having addressed us for an hour and a half on the 28th July, 2017 before the order referred to hereinabove came to be recorded and having further addressed us for twenty minutes today, expresses his inability to conclude his submissions on account of his illness, characterised as pain in his left eye. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta further articulates in Court that he feels his blood pressure has shot up and he feels the need to use the wash room frequently and is, further, unable to continue his arguments today. He, therefore, requests that the matter be adjourned for a month and a half in order to enable him to recoup his health and address this Court. We are constrained to observe that the conduct of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the present proceedings, as well as, in the Court has been unreasonable and dilatory. Even as we were dictating this order he has interrupted us a few times. However, in the interest of justice, as a final opportunity, at the request of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, we are adjourning the matter to 18th August, 2017. It is, however, made clear to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta that no further opportunity shall be granted in this behalf.

Summary

Issues: Contempt of Court, Unconditional Apology, Show Cause Notice

Contempt of Court:
The judgment involves a case where the respondent was issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent expressed willingness to withdraw some allegations but refused to withdraw all the allegations against the lawyers representing the Revenue Department. Despite being given ample opportunity to address the Show Cause Notice, the respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable and dilatory by the Court. The respondent cited health issues as a reason for not being able to conclude his submissions, leading to an adjournment of the matter to a later date. The Court observed interruptions by the respondent during the proceedings and decided to adjourn the case to 18th August 2017, providing a final opportunity for the respondent to address the issues.

Unconditional Apology:
The judgment highlights the importance of an unconditional apology in cases of contempt of court. The respondent, after discussions with his counsel, expressed his readiness to withdraw all statements made by him regarding the lawyers of the Revenue Department and was willing to file an affidavit expressing his unconditional apology. However, the respondent later stated his unwillingness to withdraw all the allegations, leading to a situation where the Court had to adjourn the matter to allow the respondent to address the Show Cause Notice properly. Despite the respondent's initial willingness to apologize, his subsequent actions and statements led to a delay in the resolution of the case.

Show Cause Notice:
The judgment discusses the issuance of a Show Cause Notice to the respondent, directing him to address the allegations leveled against the lawyers representing the Revenue Department. The respondent had already withdrawn some allegations but was not willing to retract all the statements, leading to a prolonged legal process. The Court emphasized that no further opportunities would be granted to the respondent in this matter, indicating a firm stance on the need for timely and appropriate responses to legal notices. Multiple replies filed by the respondent were noted, highlighting the complexity and contentious nature of the case.

In summary, the judgment addresses issues related to contempt of court, the significance of an unconditional apology, and the handling of a Show Cause Notice. It reflects the Court's efforts to ensure a fair and just resolution while dealing with a respondent's reluctance to fully cooperate and address the legal proceedings effectively.