Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 108
Supreme Court of India
Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.K. THAKKER, R.V. RAVEENDRAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.
National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd.
Versus
Bhim Sen Gupta & Others
Contempt Petition (C) No. 75 of 2005 In Transferred Case (C) No. 14 of 1987
Decided On : 03-02-2006
A party, especially a government entity, cannot maintain a contempt petition if they have suppressed material facts and misled the court regarding previous adjudications or related proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Suppression of material facts - Filing a contempt petition by withholding and suppressing material facts regarding subsequent proceedings and adjudications by other courts is highly misconceived - A party, particularly a government entity, cannot be permitted to mislead the court when invoking its contempt jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
A government corporation filed a contempt petition seeking action against respondents. The petitioner failed to disclose material facts concerning various proceedings undertaken after a previous judgment, including a miscellaneous petition seeking possession of a property which had been dismissed, and subsequent civil and criminal proceedings regarding the same property that had already been adjudicated by various courts.
Findings of Court:
The petition was found to be highly misconceived as the petitioner misled the court by suppressing material facts and failing to disclose previous legal proceedings and adjudications.
Issues: Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the petitioner has suppressed material facts and misled the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party cannot maintain a contempt petition if they have misled the court by suppressing relevant subsequent legal proceedings and adjudications, regardless of the underlying merits of the property claim. Such conduct warrants the dismissal of the petition with costs.
Result: Contempt petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
contempt of court
- suppression of material facts
-
contempt of court
Judgment :
We have heard learned Solicitor General for the petitioner and Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the contemnors.
We are constrained to observe that the petition seeking contempt action being taken against the respondents is highly misconceived. The petitioner has withheld and suppressed material facts from the Court in the form of various proceedings that were undertaken after the judgment was pronounced by this Court on 12th February, 1988 in M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988 (1) SCALE 273). The petitioner did not even state in the contempt petition that in the main matter a miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.26004/1988) dated 26th August, 1988 was filed seeking possession of Bungalow No.2 of Swadeshi House. That application was dismissed in terms of the order dated 3rd August, 1989 observing that it would not prejudice the rights of the parties to move an appropriate court in accordance with law. It also seems now that after the said order was passed, civil as well as criminal proceedings were taken in respect of Bungalow No.2, Swadeshi House.
The matters have been adjudicated by various courts. None of it has been disclosed by the petitioner in the contempt petition which led to issue of notice by this Court in terms of the order dated 22nd July, 2005. We are not at all going into the question whether the petitioner is entitled or not to the aforesaid property. The question is the manner in which the contempt petition is filed and this Court is misled and that too by a Government Corporation.
The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
