1. Contempt proceedings for violation of court orders and applications regarding diversion of funds from property construction projects. (Para 1 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.Jagannadha Rao : U.C.Banerjee
Delhi Development Authority
Versus
Skipper Construction
Case No. : 15 , 16 , 29 , 30 , 32a , 32b , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68
Date of Decision : 4/5/99
Failure to appear before the court despite a direct order, without filing an application for exemption, prima facie constitutes independent contempt of court. Additionally, public officials must comply with court directions regarding the service of notices.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Failure to appear before the court despite a specific direction - Absence without filing an application for exemption prima facie amounts to independent contempt. (Para 6)
(B) Administrative Compliance - Failure of a law enforcement official to serve notices as directed by the court and failure to submit a compliance report is a matter requiring explanation. (Paras 7, 8, 11)
(C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of parties - Directors of a company may be impleaded suo-moto where it is alleged that funds collected for a specific project were diverted for other purposes. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The court had directed the presence of certain individuals and the service of notices through the police. One individual failed to appear, citing fear of arrest warrants from other authorities, without seeking formal exemption. The police failed to serve notices or report compliance to the court. In a separate matter concerning property, it was alleged that funds collected from purchasers for one project were diverted to another, leading to the impleadment of company directors.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the failure to appear without an application for exemption constitutes prima facie contempt. It also noted the failure of the police to execute court orders regarding the service of notice. Regarding the property dispute, the court impleaded the directors of the construction company as respondents to address the allegations of fund diversion.
Issues: Whether the failure to appear in court without an application for exemption constitutes contempt; whether the failure of police to serve notices is a breach of court directions; and whether company directors should be impleaded in cases of alleged fund diversion.
Ratio Decidendi: A person with knowledge of a court order who fails to appear or seek exemption is prima facie committing an independent contempt. Public officials are duty-bound to comply with court directions regarding the service of notices and must provide explanations for non-compliance.
Result: Notices issued to the police official and impleaded parties; matter adjourned for further hearing.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent contends that appearance is contingent upon protection from other arrest warrants and denies committing any contempt. (Para 4 )
3. Absence from court without filing an application for exemption, despite knowledge of the order, prima facie constitutes an independent act of contempt. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Failure to appear before the court or seek formal exemption when directed constitutes prima facie contempt of court. (Para 6 )
5. Directions for physical appearance, filing of affidavits, explanation from police for non-service, and impleadment of company directors. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
6. Does absence from court without an exemption application constitute contempt?
Yes, if a person has knowledge of the court's order requiring their presence, failing to appear or seek a formal exemption prima facie amounts to an independent act of contempt. (Para 6 )
7. What is the duty of the police regarding court-ordered notices?
The police must serve court notices and ensure the presence of the directed persons; failure to provide a compliance report or serve notices may result in a notice for explanation. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 )
8. Can the court implead parties suo-moto in interlocutory applications?
Yes, the court may suo-moto implead parties, such as company directors, as respondents when it is necessary for the adjudication of the matter. (Para 14 )
(1) ON 15/03/1999, an order was passed by this court in this I.A. staling that prima facie, there was violation of the orders of this court by Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabbarwal and his wife Harpreet KauR.We directed notice to be issued to the above said two persons and also directed the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to see that the notices were served on the abovesaid two persons. There was a further direction that Shri Prabhjot Singh and Harpreet Kaur were to be present in this court today, the 5th of April, 1999 at 2 P.M. The Commissioner of Police was also directed to ensure the presence of the two persons today before this court.
(2) THE Office Report dated 3/04/1999 shows that no compliance report has been received so far from the Commissioner of Police. However, the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Harpeet Kaur submits that she is present in the court and on her behalf, time is requested for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued by this court. In the abovesaid order, we had also directed notice to be issued to M/s. Shikha Developers Ltd., Delhi. The Office Report shows that they have been served and their learned counsel seeks time to file counter affidavit.
(3) WE grant two weeks time for filing counters.
(4) SO far as Prabhjot Singh is concerned, he is not present in spite of the courts order, (though it was represented by a person who was present in the court that Shri Prabhjot Singh was waiting outside for some time). Be that as it may. He is not present inside the Courtroom. DR.A.M. Singhvi, Senior Counsel who appeared on instructions from Shri Sohail Dutt, advocate on behalf of Smt. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advocate on Record stated that Shri K.J. Singh, uncle of Shri Prabhjot Singh (who is present in court), had instructed him to inform the court that Shri Prabhjot Singh would be able to present ] himself physically in this court if this court could give him protection against arrest pursuant to other arrest warrants issued against him by different courts or authorities. The learned Counsel also submitted that Shri Prabhjot Singh was willing to file an affidavit as directed by this court by order dated 1 5/03/1999. It was also contended that Shri Prabhjot Singh had not violated any orders of this court and had not committed any contempt.
(5) THE question whether Shri Prabhjot Singh has committed any contempt of earlier order of this court is a matter which can be decided after he files a counter affidavit. So far as the order of this court dated 1 5/03/1999 is concerned, we are of the opinion that when his presence was required today, the least he could have done was to file an affidavit in this court seeking exemption from appearance before this court. Instead, he has chosen to instruct his uncle Shri K.J. Singh, to inform his counsel and the Senior Counsel that he has some difficulty in appearing in this court unless some sort of protection is granted to him.
(6) ONE would have expected a person who has knowledge of orders of this court to be present today at 2 P.M. or seek exemption from personal appearance. Neither has been done. After hearing the Senior Counsel Dr. A.M. Singhvi, we are prima facie, of the view that the absence of Shri Prabhjot Singh today despite the knowledge and that too, without filing any application for exemption, prima facie, amounts to an independent contempt by itself for which also he is required to give his explanation.
(7) THE Commissioner of Police should have informed this court as to the reasons for which he was not able to have the notice, issued by this court served on Shri Prabhjot Singh. It is rather unfortunate that not only no counsel appears on his behalf but not even information has been furnished to the Registry as to what action he has taken pursuant to the directions of this court contained in our order dated 15/03/1999 asking him to see that notice is served on Prabhjot Singh.
(8) A notice will issue to
