9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod not exceeding one month, and in addition pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- failing which the appellant was required to be detained for a further period of one month in civil prison. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate ably assisted by Ms. Bharti Sapru and Sri P.S. Baghel, the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Before noticing the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention it at the outset that the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed as under: The facts as they are, what the court has to consider is how justice must treat the contemnor, in law. On behalf of the contemnor the only argument which has been made is that he leaves the entire matter at the mercy of the court. The argument, in effect, accepts the charges and the facts, of having shown contempt to the orders of the court. The contemnor, thus, pleadings guilty and seeks mercy. In ordinary parlance this is known as contrition. In the jurisprudence which governs the law of contempt there are parameters within which an act of contrition is to be judged. 5. Despite the aforesaid observations, Sri Sudhir Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chadrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice, but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. 7. The appellant has not made any effort to approach the learned single Judge for correcting the observations, if any, made by the learned single Judge, if according to the appellant the observation made in the judgment, were not correct. There is no plea in the present appeal that the concession was not made or the appellant pleaded guilty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned that the petitioner will get U.G.C. pay scale salary in grade of ₹ 700-1600/- in the next session and till then the petitioner shall have to work on consolidated salary of ₹ 5000/-. 11. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the S.M. College, Chandausi wherein it was specifically stated that the petitioner has not been appointed as a lecturer and it was also stated that the petitioner was appointed in a stop gap arrangement at the rate of ₹ 500/- per month from 17-11-1987 to 31-12-1987 and thereafter from 1-1-1988 to 17-3-1988, he was paid salary at the rate of ₹ 700/ - per month in total. 12. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, the aforesaid writ petition was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 9-12-1988, and an interim order was passed by the Division Bench after hearing the counsel for the parties. This interim order was valid till final decision of the matter and it was not an ex parte interim order wherein the Division Bench directed the respondents that the petitioner shall continue to work as ad hoc teacher in the respondent institution and shall be paid his salary as and when it falls due in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the respondent was working who was permitted to continue by the order of the Division Bench as ad hoc lecturer in the college, the respondent filed a contempt application in this Court which was numbered as Contempt Application No. 49 of 1989 . wherein the respondent complained that the appellant has not complied with the order of the Court, dated 9-12-1988. 15. On 15-11-1990, the contempt application came up before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge passed a very detailed order on 15-11- 1990 which form part of the judgment of the learned single Judge, as such is not being repeated here. In the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge has referred to the earlier proceedings in the contempt matter which, inter alia, mentions that the appellant contemner had offered unconditional apology in August, 1989 by an affidavit. The matter came up before the Court on 2-1-1990 and after hearing, it was demonstrated to the court that the order of the Division, Bench, dated December, 9, 1989 had yet to be complied with. Thereafter on 2-1-1990, a submission had been made on behalf of the appellant contemner that the appellant contemner will ensure that the salary as is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant regarding compliance of the undertaking are not being referred to as they are not relevant in the context of the present appeal. As observed earlier, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the statement made by the learned single Judge in his judgment. 16. We are fully satisfied on merits of the case also that the appellant was guilty of committing contempt of the court for not obeying the order of the Division Bench, dated 9-12-1988 and for not honouring the subsequent undertaking given to the Court, However, we ourselves sought information as to whether ultimately the above order of this Court has been complied with by the appellant till date or till pendency of the contempt matter before the learned single Judge and with the aforesaid object we asked the respondent's counsel to file an affidavit bringing on record the aforesaid fact. Admittedly the appellant did not bring any such fact before the learned single Judge nor made any such submission, as such we do not find any fault with the judgment of learned single Judge, but for doing justice in the matter, we permitted the respondent to place on record the latest position regarding compliance of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted States of America 16 Law Ed 2d 622; 384 US 364, the Supreme Court of the United States of America while considering the various provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in United States of America observed: In re Nevitt, 117 F 448, (461) (CA8th Cir 1902), the action is essentially a civil remedy designed for the benefit of other parties and has quite properly been exercised for centuries to secure compliance with judicial decrees. Green v. United States, 356 US 165 187 : 2 L Ed 2d 672 : 696, 78 S Ct 632 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). In short, if the petitioners had chosen to obey the order they would not have faced jail.... 18. The mitigating circumstance in the present matter is that though the appellant has violated the undertaking given to the court but. the appellant was only an Hon'rary Secretary of the college and the college under the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act was on the grant in aid of the Government and the responsibility of paying salary was on the State Government. However, this cannot absolve the appellant for violating the undertaking given to the Court as noticed by the learned single Judge in his detailed judgment but can be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
