2001 (3) TMI 96 - SC - Central Excise

Contempt proceedings initiated against the judicial officer - Held that - The officer is holding a responsible position of a Civil Judge of senior Division. Even a new entrant to judicial service would not commit such mistake assuming it was a mistake. Despite these glaring facts, we assume, as pleaded by the judicial officer, that he could not understand the order and, thus, on that assumption it would be a case of outright negligence, which, in fact, stands admitted but wilful attempt to violate the order for any extraneous consideration or dishonest motive would, therefore, be absent. In this view, we drop these contempt proceedings against the officer by issue of severe reprimand. WIt cannot be ignored that the level of judicial officer s understanding can have serious impact on other litigants. There is no manner of doubt that the officer has acted in most negligent manner without any caution or care whatsoever. Without any further comment, we would leave this aspect to the disciplinary authority for appropriate action, if any, taking into consideration all relevant facts. In the special leave petition we grant leave. We feel it appropriate to make absolute the order as we had proposed in order dated 27th March, 2000. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly and, thus, the order of the High Court under challenge is modified and it is directed that the entire amount would be withdrawn only against furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The contempt petitions and appeal are disposed of accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Execution of the decree and stay of execution.
2. Withdrawal of the deposited amount without furnishing security.
3. Contempt of court by the respondent and judicial officer.
4. Apology and explanation by the respondent.
5. Negligence and reprimand of the judicial officer.
6. Modification of the High Court's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Execution of the Decree and Stay of Execution:
On 31st December 1997, the Civil Judge (SD), Anand, passed a decree in favor of the respondent for Rs. 9,33,378.37 with interest at 6% from 16th March 1982 and costs. The decree was challenged in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court granted a stay on 21st December 1999, subject to depositing the decretal amount, costs, and interest in the trial court. The respondent was allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount without security and 50% with security.

2. Withdrawal of the Deposited Amount Without Furnishing Security:
On 27th March 2000, the Supreme Court issued a notice stating that the withdrawal of the entire amount should be permitted only against security and stayed the High Court's order allowing 50% withdrawal without security. Despite this, the trial court permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount without security on 7th April 2000. This was in clear violation of the Supreme Court's order.

3. Contempt of Court by the Respondent and Judicial Officer:
A contempt petition was filed on 26th July 2000, stating that the trial court's order of 7th April 2000 violated the Supreme Court's order. The High Court directed the respondent to provide security for the withdrawn amount on 14th June 2000, which was not complied with properly. The Supreme Court issued a notice on 25th August 2000 for contempt against both the respondent and the Civil Judge.

4. Apology and Explanation by the Respondent:
Navinbhai, the power of attorney holder for the respondent, tendered an unqualified and unconditional apology for withdrawing the amount without security. He claimed ignorance of the exact contents of the Supreme Court's order and stated that actions were taken based on professional advice. Despite these claims, the Supreme Court found the conduct of the respondent reprehensible and noted the filing of a false affidavit.

5. Negligence and Reprimand of the Judicial Officer:
The judicial officer admitted to a serious lapse in understanding the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court expressed deep concern and regret over the officer's negligence. However, assuming the officer's claim of misunderstanding, the Court chose to issue a severe reprimand instead of punishing for wilful disobedience. The matter was referred to the disciplinary authority for further action.

6. Modification of the High Court's Order:
The Supreme Court granted leave in the special leave petition and made absolute the order proposed on 27th March 2000. The High Court's order was modified to direct that the entire amount could only be withdrawn against furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court addressed the issues of execution, withdrawal of the amount without security, and contempt of court by both the respondent and the judicial officer. The respondent's apology was accepted with leniency, while the judicial officer was severely reprimanded for negligence. The High Court's order was modified to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's directives.

← Previous Next →