IMPORTANT POINT
Both litigant and Judicial Officer are guilty of contempt but they are pardoned on unconditional apologies. However, High Court is directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against Judicial Officer.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Contempt petition against decree Holder of a money decree-Order of Court directing withdrawal of 50% of deposited decreetal amount without security and 50% with security-Stayed-Amount withdrawn on wrong affidavit-Contempt is there-Appellant was abroad and contempt was by his P.A.-So apology granted.
       Held : There can be no manner of doubt from the circumstances of the case that in clear breach of the order of this Court, the amount was withdrawn without security. It is also apparent that in breach of the order of the High Court dated 14th June, 2000 instead of furnishing security, a solvency certificate was filed by the respondent before the trial Court. It also appears that in reply to the civil application, the respondent instead of taking a forthright stand took shelter under the order of the trial Court dated 7th April, 2000 urging that the legality of the said order cannot be examined by the High Court in that appeal. It is apparent that there has been blatant flouting of the order of this Court. It is not an order of which any one can even remotely think of two interpretations. None has so pleaded. The conduct of the respondent has been reprehensible. (Para 13)
       The explanation is entirely misconceived. The admitted filing of a false affidavit which is now sought to be explained constitutes contempt by itself. It is evident that the deponent has no regard whatsoever for truth. He has taken different stands at different times to suit his convenience. Having regard to the fact that the respondent is said to be living abroad since 1997, we do not want to punish him for the action of his attorney, to whom notice of contempt has not been issued. Under these circumstances, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to accept the apology. It is ordered accordingly. (Para 14)
       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Contempt notice to Judicial Officer-Judicial Officer tendering apology as he could not read the order correctly-Apology granted-Matter, however, referred for departmental enquiry, if any.
       Held : Reverting now to the contempt proceedings initiated against the judicial officer, tendering unconditional and unqualified apology, he says that "with my limited understanding, I could not read the order correctly". 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. (Para 15)
       Held however, Without any further comment, we would leave this aspect to the disciplinary authority for appropriate action, if any, taking into consideration all relevant facts. We do not know whether present is an isolated case of such an understanding? We do not know what has been his past record? In this view, we direct that a copy of the order shall be sent forthwith to the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat. (Para 16)
       Held finally : 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. (Para 17)

ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-The circumstances under which an order was passed by this Court on 25th August, 2000 directing that notice be issued on contempt petitions, in brief, are these:

On 31st December, 1997, Civil Judge (SD), Anand passed a decree in favour of respondent, inter alia, for Rs. 9,33,378.37p. with interest @ 6% from the date of the suit, i.e., from 16th March, 1982 and cost of the suit. The said decree is the subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No.2317/98 filed by the defendants (petitioners in SLP and contempt petition) in the High Court of Gujarat. A civil application was filed by the petitioners in the High Court seeking stay of the execution of the decree. The High Court by order dated 21st December, 1999 granted stay of the execution of the decree subject to the condition that decretal amount together with costs and interest is deposited in the trial Court within the period stipulated in the order. The High Court further directed that on deposit being made, the respondent who is the original plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court and 50% without security.

2. The order dated 21st December, 1999 is the subject matter of challenge in the Special Leave Petition. While issuing notice in the petition on 27th March, 2000, this Court directed that the notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the SLP stage by varying the order under challenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against security and withdrawal of 50% amount without security was stayed. The order reads :

"Issue notice. Notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the S.L.P. stage by varying the order under challenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against security.

Pending further orders, the order under challenge is stayed to the extent that it permits the respondent to withdraw fifty per cent of the amount without furnishing security."

3. Pursuant to the decree, a sum of Rs. 19,51,268/- was deposited in the trial court on 24th March, 2000.

4. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, Superintendent, Central Excise declared on oath in an affidavit before the trial Court that this Court on 27th March, 2000 has passed in order that 50% amount can be withdrawn with full surety and remaining 50% shall not be withdrawn. It was stated that "if the judgment creditor approaches for permission to withdraw, the judgment creditor may be permitted to withdraw 50% amount thereof on furnishing full security". It was further stated that the certified copy of the order of this Court shall be produced as soon as it is received. On 1st April, 2000, an application was filed by Kanubhai Ambalal Patel, the power of attorney holder of the first respondent, before the Civil Judge praying that as per the order of the High Court of Gujarat, 50% of the amount may be allowed to be withdrawn without surety and 50% with surety. On 3rd April the Civil Judge, on consideration of the affidavit of the Superintendent of Central Excise and the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff permitted the judgment creditor/plaintiff to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount on furnishing full surety. On 5th April, 2000, order of this Court dated 27th March, 2000 was received by the Trial Court. On 7th April, 2000, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial Court stating that this Court has passed an order to pay 50% of the amount to him without surety and praying that order may be passed to pay the said 50% amount deposited by the Excise Department without furnishing security. On the said application, after hearing counsel for both the parties, on the same date, namely, 7th April, 2000, an order was passed permitting withdrawal of 50% amount without furnishing surety. The order reads as follows :

"Plaintiff and his advocate are present. Heard. The defendant and his advocate the Government Pleader are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 553

IMPORTANT POINTBoth litigant and Judicial Officer are guilty of contempt but they are pardoned on unconditional apologies. However, High Court is directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against Judicial Officer.

IMPORTANT POINT
Both litigant and Judicial Officer are guilty of contempt but they are pardoned on unconditional apologies. However, High Court is directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against Judicial Officer.