9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport of these proceedings and is open to the consequences of the same. The actions of the respondent may well have been impelled by his conviction of self-righteousness, however, such delusion as may be, would not mitigate the ill-effects of his deliberate actions which the Court finds to be contumacious. He would, therefore, have to be held responsible for the same. The Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondent, insofar as he has leveled baseless allegations against counsel who appeared and assisted the Court and as well as for the other reasons specified in the Show Cause Notice, tantamount to substantial interference in the administration of justice. In the circumstances, the respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is found guilty of criminal contempt of court. He is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one week along with a fine of ₹ 2000/-. The fine shall be deposited within one week from today in this Court in the name of Registrar General, failing which he will undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days. In view of the fact that the contemnor has stated that he will prefer an appeal against the sentence, the same is suspended for 60 days, in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oting the order dated 16.10.2014, the following averments were made: F. However, no no joint flow chart was submitted, despite Income Tax official has submitted documents given by Intervener to them. (As stated in point D above.) G. Nothing is done to protect Government interest by giving factual facts to Honourable Court. However, there are six pages (unsigned and without detail of who is submitting it, to Honourable Court) in ITA 1428/2006 CIT Vs. Escorts Limited. These pages, completely ignored the facts in favour of tax department. H. Reason of submitted it (loose six unsigned pages/documents) in open court, without signature, is that in future, they completely disown these six pages and even removed after wards from Court Records. I. Removing of documents after Court Decision was done in others cases of Escorts Limited/Dr. Naresh Trehan key man Insurance tax evasion cases. (These cases are decided in favour of Tax Payers, by stating that tax payers are allowed Tax planning. In this case Key-man Insurance Booklet was removed, which prove assignment was illegal. Tax department had also not informed, other illegality involved (like fund siphoning by ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Counsel of Income Tax, all the connected Income Tax officials and all concerned Assessee. Issue One: these parties Escorts Limited, Big Apple Clothing, Dr. Naresh Trehan AAA Portfolio became owner of EHIRC hospital (Delhi Society by fraud). XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 11. Tax payers as well Tax departments Action of deliberately misleading Hon ble Delhi High Court is contempt of Court. Papers given by above parties are under oath. And all concerned party (Concerned CIT (at present CIT 3 Delhi, CIT 21 Delhi CIT Faridabad), Income Tax Counsel and Tax payers) know about forgery, even then hiding it, is clearly contempt of court for malafide reasons. 4. At the outset, when the above fact was pointed out, learned counsel for the Revenue and the assessee pointed to the affidavit and stated that this does not amount to compliance with the previous order. Sh. Gupta was asked whether he wishes to unconditionally withdraw the affidavit and the allegations, to which he agreed conditionally. The condition proposed by him was that even whilst he was willing to withdraw the affidavit and the allegations with respect to the Standing Counsel and the conduct of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . These shall be annexed along with the Show Cause Notice to be served upon Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta on the next returnable date, i.e. 09.04.2015. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is present in Court and has been apprised of this order. C.M. Nos.2553/2015 2554/2015 in ITA 1428/2006 Issue notice. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice. List on 12.03.2015.... 2. Subsequently, on 12.03.2015, following orders were passed: . 1. Mr. Simran Mehta, counsel for the assessee has handed over a copy of the application, which he submits was sent to him and to Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, counsel for the revenue by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The said application seeks complaint to be lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This pertains to the conduct of the present case itself. The document particularly contains averments to the effect that the counsel Mr. Simran Mehta and their associates and Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, who appears for the revenue are deliberately not exposing any statements and are in collusion with each other. 2. The statement of Mr. Gupta, who is present in person in Court,has been separately recorded. He alleges that the revenue s counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed inter alia as under: ... 3. At the outset, it may be noted that given the nature of these applications, we had endeavoured to dispose of these applications by oral orders but we were not permitted to do so by the interventions and opposition by the respondent contemnor, who did not permit us to pass orders on these applications making allegations against the court that he was not being heard. He has made protracted submissions. In view of his intemperate and obstructive conduct, we have also been compelled to reserve the orders on these applications. 4. We may also note that Crl. M.A. No. 17318/2016 (page519) in paras 3 and 4, the respondent contemnor has made the following averments:- 3. C/R-1 is facing this case in person and has basic law knowledge only. Due to lack of fund, does not able to engage proper Lawyers to take his case. 4. Absence of, lawyers help has resulted order by Tax bench, which has ignored various facts. . 5. So as to ensure fair representation and access to justice tothe applicant, we put forth a suggestion that we would give him a lawyer of ability from the panel which has been constituted by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015, 18534/2015, 7868/2016, 7869/2016, 7870/2016, 17316/2016, 17317/2016, 17318/2016 and 17319/2016 filed by the respondent before us. Before dealing with the individual applications, it is necessary to note a few essential facts relating to the litigation wherefrom the present contempt proceedings arise. It appears that three Income Tax Appeals and one Writ Petition being ITA No. 1428/2006 CIT v. M/s Escorts Ltd.; ITA 2011/2010 CIT v Big Apple Clothing Pvt. Ltd.; ITA 1262/2011 CIT v. Naresh K. Trehan and W.P.(C) No.836/2007 Escorts Ltd. V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income are pending before this court. These matters relate to income tax assessment orders and proceedings under the Income Tax Act against the private parties therein. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the respondent herein, has no connection with the parties and is also not a party to these proceedings. 2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta filed an intervention application being CM No.5779/2008 in ITA 1428/2006 CIT v. M/s. Escorts Ltd. in which he had levelled several allegations against the counsel for the revenue. This application was rejected by the court by the order dated 15th January, 2005. Similar allegations were made in subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings. (ii) Crl.M.A.No.12119/2015 (at page 375) 6. This application is premised on the averments made in para 3, 4 and 9 which are to the following effect : 3. On 12/2/2015, Hon'ble Court bench admitted Mr. Simran Mehta CM APPL.-2553/2015 and issued notice. Mr. Simran Mehta had given copy of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB during court proceeding. On next date of hearing 12/3/2015, Mr. Simran Mehta denied giving copy of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB. 4. Accusers (Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate) are not giving, even basic material to C/R-1/IV/WB. e.g. Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate (is not identifying the pages (out of 6 loose pages -*Page 12 to 17 of Application dated 10/3/2015) given by him to Hon'ble Court. (request was made by e mail dated 23-2-2015 11-4-2015). Similarly Mr. Simran Mehta is not sticking to one particular stand (taken two different stand -first stand-case of giving CM copy on CM admission date, then (second stand) totally opposite stand of not giving CM copy on the date CM decision )( request was made by e mail dated 11-4-2015) . Similarly not giving certified copy of CM and decision in which Mr. Simran Mehta got injunction orders (against C/R-1/IV/WB), because C/R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he court. This application is dismissed with costs of `2,500/which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (iv) Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 (page 412) 10. By this application, the applicant seeks early disposal of Crl.M.A.Nos.12118/2015, 12119/2015, 12120/2015. In as much as these applications have been heard and are being disposed of by this order, Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 is hereby disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (v) Crl.M.A.No.7868/2016 (page 451) 11. By this application, the applicant has prayed for permission to record the hearings in court by phone, camera/electronic device. Such a prayer is completely unwarranted. This application is misconceived and is dismissed as such. (vi) Crl.M.A.No.7869/2016 (page 454) 12. In this application, the applicant has made the following averments : 2. Tax payers are hiding important facts and giving false statement to win tax cases/ proceeding through unfair means. And harass (C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding. 3. Income Tax department is still presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 457) 16. We extract the averments made by the respondent on which the prayer in this application is premised: 2. Tax payers are hiding important facts and giving false statement to win tax cases/ proceeding through unfair means. And harass (C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding. 3. Income Tax department is still presenting weak case in Tax cases (ITA 1428/2006 and connected matters) and not brought to this Hon'ble court notice about their strong points and false averments of tax payers. 4. Above action of Tax payer and Tax department has resulted ,huge delay in payment of reward money to C/R-1 of more than decade. C/R-1 devote maximum time to help Tax department to collect evaded income tax. Delayed reward payment is giving huge financial stress to C/R-1. Tax payer and Tax department is using this hon'ble Court proceeding to kill the C/R-1 economically first, which ultimately will result physical death. 5. In the light of above, C/R-1 prayed this hon'ble court to direct Tax department to pay interim reward to ₹ 10 Crore. C/R-1 final reward may exceed ₹ 1000 Crore as stated in Page 395 Para 15(i) of interim reply dated 19/9/2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave attended very few hearings in the present proceedings and seeks directions to the Tax Department to depute a representative to this court for completion of formalities. It is trite that contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor. In case, presence of any particular person or authority is deemed necessary, it is for the court to so direct. The prayer made in this application is misconceived and is rejected with costs of `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (x) Crl.M.A.No.17318/2016 (page 519) 23. In this application, the respondent has made the following assertions in paras 3 and 4: 3. C/R-1 is facing this case in person and has basic law knowledge only. Due to lack of fund, does not able to engage proper lawyers to take his case. 4. Absence of lawyers help has resulted order by Tax bench, which has ignored various facts. 24. In para 5, the applicant refers to proceedings before the Tax Bench in the aforestated appeals and contempt. The respondent makes the following prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purposes of deciding the issues in the Income Tax Appeals and writ petition. Such prayer in the present proceedings is completely misdirected. The application is dismissed with costs which are assessed at ₹ 2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings..... 5. There is no record of the respondent having deposited the said costs imposed upon him. In other words, he is in default of the said directions. Subsequently, on 17.05.2017, the Court noted that although on 25.01.2017 the respondent had declined the appointment of a lawyer from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to assist him in the present proceedings, nevertheless on his oral request in the Court, Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Advocate was appointed as an amicus curiae to aid and assist him in addressing the Court on the legal as well as the factual issues. 6. On 04.08.2017, the following order was passed: ....Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae) appointed by this Court to aid and assist Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the respondent, in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta having addressed us for an hour and a half on the 28 ' 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 also observed that the respondent has filed multiple replies to show cause notice. It is, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions which have been leveled, we are of the view that since this Court has already submitted this appeal and substantial questions of law have been framed, the informer has no role to play. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Consequently, his application for intervention is rejected. If he has any grievance, he has other avenues open to him under law. But, intervening in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is certainly not one of those avenues. The application is dismissed. 9. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) has submitted that the respondent has leveled baseless and wanton allegations against counsel, who were representing their respective departments and were assisting the Court, this amounts to intervention in the administration of justice and constitutes criminal contempt of court. He relies upon the following judgments: (i) H. Syama Sundara Rao vs UOI Ors. 2007 Crl. LJ 2626 in which it was held as under: Casting aspersions and extending threats by issuing notices to the Advocate for the opposite side containing disparaging and derogatory remarks has the effect of deterring an Advocate from conducting his duties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle which was applicable with regard to the criticism of a Judge or the judgment. (v) Damayanti G. Chandiramani vs S. Vaney AIR 1966 Bom 19 in which it was held as under: Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation. It is settled law that disrespect or disregard to an advocate in certain circumstances so as to deter him from discharging his duties would amount to contempt of court. 10. In H. Syama Sundara Rao (supra) this Court had held as under: 17. In Charan Lal Sahu (supra) while hearing a petition stated to be a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner couched in unsavoury language, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner therein had made intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Court itself and also other constitutional institutions which clearly gave the impression that the petitioner intended to denigrate the Supreme Court in the esteem of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o maintain dignity of the court etc. By relying on the said judgments, the petitioner is trying to state that as the reply filed by the respondents contains falsehoods allegedly made at the instance of and legal advise rendered by the counsel, therefore, it is not the petitioner, but the counsel who is guilty of contempt of this Court. We are unable to appreciate the arguments made by the petitioner. Even assuming that false averments were made in the reply by the respondents, the petitioner has the liberty to point out the same to the Court in the course of arguments or by filing appropriate proceedings and the Court would have taken appropriate action, if deemed necessary and proper. However, the Court cannot permit the petitioner to don the mantle of a Judge, level accusations against the counsel for the other side, hold him guilty and threaten him with various consequences during the pendency of the case, as done by the petitioner in the present case. 21. In fact, one of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, namely, Pratap Singh (supra) only reiterates what has been stated hereinabove with regard to obstructing the court and perverting the course of justice amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmitted any contempt. Even in the written submissions handed over by the petitioner in the course of arguments on 2nd November, 2006, the petitioner starts by saying he has not committed any contempt and in fact it is the advocate for the respondents who has committed professional misconduct, criminal contempt and fraud on judiciary. Thereafter, the petitioner has reiterated all the averments that he made against the advocate in the notices served upon the advocate as also in the earlier reply to the notice to show cause issued by us. The petitioner was informed by the court that if he thought it proper he may tender an unconditional apology and that he could not add any riders or stipulations to his apology. The petitioner thereafter continued to address us on the contempt and sought to justify his acts. Therefore, the question of dropping the proceedings was ruled out.... 11. From the preceding narration of facts, it is evident that the respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has cast aspersions against the integrity of the advocates for the Revenue who, as officers of the Court, have been assisting this Court in the administration of justice. The respondent s intervenor applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel from rendering assistance to the Court and to their client fully and freely. It would also be a serious and constant embarrassment in the legal fraternity and amongst their respective families, between relatives and social circle. Indeed, two standing counsel concerned who had appeared for the Revenue and had assisted the Court had recused themselves from this case. 14. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that after the respondent s intervention application was rejected on 23.09.2008, his continued engagement in communication with the standing counsel for levelling allegations against them, addressing e-mail directly to this Court and placing on record an affidavit detailing the allegations, even after stating that he will withdraw them vis-a-vis the standing counsel but would nevertheless press the same allegations elsewhere constitutes criminal contempt of court. Mr. Gupta has levelled irresponsible and serious allegations against the counsel for the Revenue, including an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking to register a case against the standing counsel for the Revenue as recorded in the order dated 03.03.2015. 15. The respondent has chosen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
