9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the name and style of Sree Ram Silk Manufacturing Company as its sole proprietor. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are said to be closely related to each other. Sm. Budhvanti, Respondent No. 5, is the wife of the Respondent No. 1 Hira Singh whose sons are Harbhajan, Joginder and Monmohan, Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Sm. Nand Kaur, Respondent No. 6, is the wife of Harbhajan and Sm. Jasbir Kaur, Respondent No. 7, is the wife of Joginder. The Respondents No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are the partnership firms carried on by some or other of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 carrying on business under the name and styles of Anand Silk Stores, Anand Agencies, Anand and Company and Sher-E-Punjab Silk Stores respectively. 3. Facts leading to the present application for contempt shortly are : The Petitioner appointed the Respondent No. 8 Anand Silk Stoves as its del credere agent for the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himanchal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi for the sale of its silk and synthetic products. As such an agent the Respondent No. 8 from time to time introduced various customers including the Respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 11 to whom the Petitioner from time to time sold and delive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Petitioner which the Petitioner failed to pay and on the other hand; the Petitioner instituted several frivolous suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chinsurah. The Respondent No. 8, therefore, claimed for accounts. In this suit, the said Respondent No. 8, Anand Silk Stores, filed an application under Sections 10, 22 and 151 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for injunction restraining the Petitioner who was the Defendant No. 1 in that suit from proceeding with its suits bearing Money Suit Nos. 10, 11, 13, 18, 19 and 22 of 1974 then pending in the Court of the Subordinate judge at Chinsurah or, in the alter-native, for an order directing trial of those suits being stayed till the disposal of their Suit No. 146 of 1975 filed in the Delhi High Court. Such an application was founded on the ground that the Petitioner in filing the suits at Chinsurah had chosen the forum With a mala fide intention to harass the Plaintiff and to defeat it from getting its legitimate dues because it would have to face a lot of difficulty in reaching the Court at Chinsurah and secondly, on the ground that on the balance of convenience, as most of the ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on to observe: There are other reasons why no order for transfer be made as prayed for by the Petitioner. The Petitioner at the time of making, of these applications for transfer had suppressed that it had previously made an application under Sections 10, 22 and Section 151 read with Order 39 Rules Hand 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before die learned Single Judge in the High Court at Delhi praying that an ad interim injunction be issued restraining the Defendant No. 1 in the said suit. (Messrs Hastings Mills Limited) from protesting with its Money Suits against it and others in the 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge at Chinsurah. It had also prayed that the trial of these suits brought by the present opposite party No. 1 be stayed till the disposal of the suit brought by the Petitioner in the High Court at Delhi for rendition of accounts On April 29, 1975, Prithviraj J. dismissed the said application of the Petitioner, inter alia, observing: The mere fact that the Chinsurah Court is at a long distance from Delhi or that most of the witnesses are from Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Himanchal Pradesh would not by itself be sufficient ground to hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having failed, the Respondent No. 9, Anand Agencies, moved an application under Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the code of Civil Procedure in this Court on November 12, 1975 and obtained C.R. No. 4134 of 1975. On a similar application being moved by Sher-E-Punjab Silk Stores, Respondent No. 11, a Rule was similarly issued which was registered as C.R. No. 4548 of 1975. These applications were directed respectively against Money Suit Nos. 10 and 11 of 1974 pending in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Chinsurah. The prayer as originally made in these applications was for the transfer of the money suits from the Court of the Subordinate judge to a Court within the Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court or to any other Court within the jurisdiction of this High Court. The first part of the prayer was, however, deleted these applications however, were ultimately dismissed not only on merits but also on the ground that they were not bona fide. this Court observed: It is interesting to note that the present Petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 (Anand Silk Stores) were two partnership firms consisting of the same set of person. It is obvious, there-fore, that the opposite patty no 2 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stly feed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the issues involved, documents required and evidence be tendered that disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents should he dealt with by an appropriate Court other than the Chinsurah Court and with that bona fide object and for protecting their valuable and legitimate rights they had taken the different proceedings not only to Appropriate relief but also for furtherance of cause of justice. It is claimed that taking recourse to judicial proceedings for obtaining relief does not amount to committing contempt and even if there was any error of judgment in the matter of conducting such proceedings that is a bona fide error which does not render the act contumacious. They have further pleaded that in case the Court holds otherwise they tender unqualified apologies for what they have done. 12. Mr. Bachawat appearing in support of this Rule has strongly contended that in view of the facts set out in the petition which could, not be disputed by the Respondents, the Respondents must be held guilty of criminal contempt. According to Bachawat such facts well establish the position that the Respondent were de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appened to be concealment of some facts by the Respondents this Court should not hold such concealment to be evidence of contumacious act, inasmuch as failure to disclose such facts may as well be unintentional or due to any bona fide error and lastly, it has been contended by Mr. Deb that even if it be held that there had been some abuse of the processes of court that alone should not be a ground for punishing them, for contempt. 15. The charge in the present case levelled against the Respondents is one of misconduct amounting to criminal contempt. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Section Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 859 that such a charge requires strict proof. Standard of proof required to establish a charge of criminal contempt is the same as in other criminal proceedings. Though mens rea is not an essential ingredient yet the Court cannot punish unless the act is wilful. We would, therefore, proceed to consider the charges levelled against the Respondents from such a standard to find out whether such charges are established beyond all doubt. 16. Section 2(c) of the said Act has defined criminal contempt to mean doing of any act which e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d but how far such allegations have been proved and how far such allegations establish the charge of criminal contempt. We have already seen that the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are closely related to each other and amongst them they carry on businesses of four partnership firms, namely, the Respondents Nos. 8 to 11. It is not in dispute that the present Petitioner instituted ten money suits out of which eight were pending at the relevant time in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chinsurah. In all these suits. Anand Silk Stores, Respondent No. 8, Was a common Defendant. Claim in each of these suits made by the Petitioner is for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered to Defendants other than Anand Silk Stores who acted as del credere agent. Most of these suits including Money Suit Nos. 10, 11 and 1974 of 1974 had been instituted between July and December 1974. Now Anand, Silk Stores, Respondent No. 8, which is a partnership firm of the Respondent No. 1, Hira Singh and his two sons, the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 instituted a counter suit in the Original Side of the Delhi High Court being Suit No. 146 of 1975. In this suit, apart from the present Petitioner being made the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi High Court. Grounds for such transfer as pleaded in these revisional applications 'were substantially covered by the grounds pleaded in the interlocutory application earlier filed in Suit No. 146 of 1975 in the Original Side of the Delhi High Court which had been posed of against the said Respondent No. 8 (the, Petitioner in these Rules). In moving these applications the Respondent No. 8 did not disclose the fact that on similar grounds he had earlier moved an interlocutory application before the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court had overruled those grounds in renting the application. Though it is claimed' by Mr. Roy and Mr. Deb that omission to disclose such facts was not deliberate but it was so done as the said facts were considered to be not relevant, we are not in a position to accept such a defence. The interlocutory application had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court only a few days earlier and when the applications for attachment were taken up by the learned Subordinate Judge at Chinsurah, the Respondent No. 8 obtained an adjournment only to move the aforesaid revisional applications ill this Court wherein they prayed for an interim stay of the money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975 and on August 14, 1975. This time, the suits were filed by the Respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 11 who were parties to the earlier Original Side suit of the Delhi High Court being Suit No. 146 of 1975. In these suits, the respective Plaintiff moved as many interlocutory applications of the similar nature as earlier moved in Suit No. 146 of 1975 and based on same grounds. In these interlocutory applications the Plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the present Petitioner from proceeding with Money Suit Nos. 10, 11 and 18 court of the Subordinate Judge Chinsurah. The application also failed and were dismissed by a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court, who, as we have indicated hereinbefore, clearly found that the controversy raised in those suits is identical to the one involved in the earlier suit being suit No. 146 of 1975 to which those Plaintiffs were parties. The learned Judge dismissed those application as the grounds urged were covered by the previous decision dated April 21, 1975, rendered in the previous Suit No. 146 of 1975. It should be noted that in Suit No. 526 of 1975 of the aforesaid three suit, the Plaintiff sher-E-Punjab Silk Stores (Respondent No. 11) is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, these revisional applications were clearly fictitious and vexatious in character. The real prayer made in these applications was for transfer of the two Money Suits 10 and 11 from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chinsurah, to the Delhi High Court but at the, time when the application was, being moved obviously when it was detected that a similar application had earlier been refused that part of the prayer was deleted but, as a result thereof, the prayer that, was left was absolutely vague and uncertain. The only prayer that was left was to transfer it from the Court of the Subordinate judge at Chinsurah not specifying to which court the transfer was asked for. The frame of the application leaves no manner of doubt that it was not a bona fide one and the learned judges in dismissing these applications found as such when they observed that it was really the Respondent No. 8 who had initiated these applications in tile name of the respective Petitioners after its failure in earlier proceedings. These applications, therefore, clearly establish abuse of the process of Court in the like manner as we have found hereinbefore in regard to obtaining the eight Rules being C.R. Nos. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Respondents may as well be explained as those bona fide taken by the Respondents in lawful exercise of their rights of on a mis-conception as regards such rights based on an error of judgment on their part. There being the possibility of such a contingency the benefit of doubt must ensure in favour of the Respondents because an action in contempt can be taken only in a clear case in our view, though there can be no dispute as to the principles enunciated by Mr. Roy the same can have no application in the present case. Facts found go to show that the Respondents were initiating successive proceedings covering same grounds and on suppression of material facts which are far from being bona fide. There is also no scope for thinking that what they did, they did on any misconception as to their rights based on any error of judgment when we find that they deliberately abused the different processes positively and solely with the object of frustrating the suits brought by the Petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Chinsura. Facts and attending circumstances leave no scope for acceptance of any defence of the nature pleaded for by Mr. on their behalf. Though we are quite c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The fine is to be realised by the Sheriff. 23. Before we conclude we have to dispose of a subsidiary prayer made by the Petitioner in this application. Such prayer is the prayer for an injunction restraining the Respondents and each of them, their servants and agents from initiating any suit or proceeding of whatever nature in any Court against the Petitioner without first obtaining the leave from this Court. According to the Petitioner a mere order of committal would not be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case as there are reasonable grounds for apprehending that notwithstanding such an order the Respondents are likely to indulge in similar acts hereinafter which are highly prejudicial and oppressive so far as the Petitioner is concerned. In our view, such an apprehension is well justified in the facts and circumstances and if this Court possesses the necessary jurisdiction to issue such an injunction we feel no hesitation in holding that it is a fit case for grant of such an injunction. We have heard the learned Advocates on the question as to whether we can issue such an injuncti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
