9911796707
TMI Blog1949 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur. A servant of the vendor was sent along with opposite party 1 to Ghazipur to fetch the balance. Ram Agyan, opposite party 1, gave a crossed cheque, dated 24 4-1948, for the balance of the price to the servant. The aforesaid cheque was sent for collection by the applicants but was returned with the remark that the payment had been stopped by the drawer. So far the facts are admitted. Opposite parties explained that what had happened was that, before they took delivery of the fans, they had got the fans tested in their presence but, when they opened the parcel at Ghazipur, they found that five fans were defective and were not the same as had been tested and so they stopped the payment of the cheque which they had given. However that may be, the applicant's case further is that as a transaction of sale had taken place through one Prem Shanker they sent Prem Shanker to Ghazipur to settle up the matter with opposite party 1. His efforts proved unsuccessful and Ram Agyan refused to pay the balance of the money. In this state of affairs, applicant 2, as a manager of the firm, filed a complaint on 18-5-1948 against Ram Agyan Singh, opposite party 1, under Section 406, Penal Code, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unpacking of the fans he expressed doubts that five of the ceiling fans were not those that were tested by him in your workshop and when installed did not run with the load of the blades. Thereupon your electrician wrote you a post-card from here about the aforesaid facts and we also wrote you a letter dated 29-4-1948 informing you about the same as also about our stopping payment of the aforesaid cheque for ₹ 1,430-1-0. In that letter we had informed you after consulting your electrician, who was present here, that repair charges to the said five defective fans would be about ₹ 400, consequently we had sought your advice whether to return to you the said five fans at your cost or to send you another cheque after deducting the cost of repairs whereupon you sent Mr. Prem Shankar of M/s. Thawani and Co., Kanpur who had arranged the sale of your fans to us, for making personal enquiry into the matter. He came here on or about 10-5-1948 and saw the defective fans. He promised us to request you to communicate us very early with your decision in the matter and assured us to see that the repairs expenses were deducted from the amount of the balance payable to you viz., &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 406, and that this amounts to interference with the administration of justice and so a contempt of Court. 4. Opposite party 1 is concerned with the two complaints filed by him and opposite party 2 is concerned with the issuing of the notice of 19-6-1948. So far as the filing of the complaints is concerned, it is clearly in the exercise of one's legal rights. If Ram Agyan really felt that the applicant's firm had been really guilty of breach of trust, he was perfectly entitled to file a complaint under Section 420, Penal Code. If his allegations made in the complaint were false he would, of course, bear the consequences. The same is the case with the second complaint under Section 500. If it be true that by making allegations in the complaint under Section 406, and by having opposite party 1 arrested in pursuance of a warrant, the applicants had committed an offence under Section 500, Penal Code, then opposite party 1 was within his rights to file the complaint. If it should appear that his complaint is not true he will bear the consequences ; but the mere fact of the filing of the, two complaints by opposite party 1 cannot be said to amount to a contempt of Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and that, therefore, it was a contempt of Court. We do not think that this was a threat dissuading a party from proceeding with a case. We think what opposite party 2 meant to say was: Here is our dispute. It is better to compromise it out of Court. If it is not compromised, we shall be constrained to take whatever legal proceedings may be open to us. It will be observed that the threat, if any, consisted in the taking of certain legal proceedings which the opposite parties would be entitled to take if their version of the dispute was correct. If a party says-- These are the true facts and I have a right to proceed against you in a Court of law. I will, however, not proceed in a Court of law if the matter is amicably settled -- where does the contempt come in here? Even if it were a threat, it was a threat to exercise one's own vested right. Such a threat cannot amount to a contempt of Court. The case is parallel to one reported in Webster v. Bakewell Rural District Council (1916) 1 Ch. 300. In that case the yearly tenant of a cottage and land, adjoining a highway and forming part of a settled estate, issued a writ against the local authority for an injunction to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. A Bench of this Court held that the threat held out in the notice had the effect of putting pressure on the defendant to withdraw the plea which had been taken in the written statement and was thus a direct interference with the administration of justice. 9. In support of its decision the Bench relied upon the case of Smith v. Lakeman (1856) 26 LJCh 305 where the plaintiff had sent a letter to the defendant with a view to intimidating him in the conduct of his defence warning him that if the suit should go up for judgment, he would be indicted for swindling, perjury and forgery and thus his family would be brought in disgrace. Smith V. C. held that it was a threat for the purpose of intimidating the defendant as a suitor and was, therefore, contempt of Court. Now it will be observed that the threat in that case was not for doing something in protection of one's rights but for maliciously putting the other party to disgrace, by bringing an action, probably false, for swindling, perjury and forgery. A case of this kind stands entirely on a different footing. Nobody is entitled to intimidate suitor by holding out a threat of disgrace being brought upon him or his family or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , perhaps, be said to involve some sort of intimidation because the action proposed is connected intimately with the pending proceedings itself, the latter cannot be said to have that tendency. 14. The law with regard to this matter, so far settled, may be stated as follows: (1) If there is a threat held out against a party to a legal proceeding not to proceed with the proceeding or to drop a plea which he had legitimately taken and the threat is that, if this is not done, then some harm will be caused to that party, either by way of a bodily injury or injury to reputation, or in some other way, the threat constitutes an interference with the administration of justice and is contempt of Court, Smith v. Lakeman (1856) 26 LJCh 305 If the threat is not express, but is implied in the fact of a party instituting a criminal complaint or taking some civil proceeding which pubs the former party to loss, there is no interference with the administration of justice because everybody is entitled to take recourse to law--Hrishikesh Singh v. A.P. Bagchi 1940 ALJ 579 and Radhey Lal v. Niranjan Nath1940 ALJ 798. (3) If there is a simple demand for payment of damages because of the use of some d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
