Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
CIPLA Limited – Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Krishna Dushyant Rana – Defendant
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.735 OF 2013 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.475 OF 2010
Decided On : 31-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr.Mahesh Londhe, Mr.Akshay Udeshi and Ms.Radha Ved, M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr.Induprakash K.Tripathi i/by C.K.Tripathi, Mr.Umesh Shetty, Mr. Krishna D.Rana.
Deliberate and willful disobedience of court orders, including filing false affidavits, amounts to contempt of court and obstructs the administration of justice.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Summary Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XXXVII Rule 6, Order XXI Rule 41 - The court found the defendant guilty of contempt of court for repeatedly filing false affidavits and deliberately disobeying court orders. The defendant's conduct was deemed contumacious and obstructing the administration of justice. The court ordered the defendant to be detained in civil prison for three months.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a summary suit against the defendant for recovery of a substantial amount. Despite repeated opportunities, the defendant failed to comply with court orders and filed false affidavits, leading to a contempt of court proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendant guilty of contempt of court for deliberately filing false affidavits and disobeying court orders. The defendant's conduct was deemed contumacious and obstructing the administration of justice.
Issues: The main issue was the defendant's repeated failure to comply with court orders and the filing of false affidavits, leading to a contempt of court proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that deliberate and willful disobedience of court orders, including filing false affidavits, amounts to contempt of court and obstructs the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court ordered the defendant to be detained in civil prison for three months, the maximum period provided, due to the deliberate, willful, and contumacious conduct of the defendant.
1. This is one of those matters where the court is anguished with the conduct of the defendant who despite being given repeated opportunity has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the court. It is rather unfortunate that the defendant, who is probably in his 30's at least from the appearance, if let off to continue with his behaviour, it will erode the faith that the public have on judiciary. The rule of law is premised upon the faith reposed by the people in the justice delivery system. To prevent erosion of that faith contemptuous behaviour in the face of the court needs a strict treatment.
2. The plaintiffs, who are the applicants, filed a summary suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,25,25,687/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.2,84,04,480/-. The plaintiffs also took out a summons for judgment.
3. The defendant Krishna Dushyant Rana is the sole proprietor of a concern to whom the plaintiffs sold, supplied and delivered goods of a total value of Rs.3,00,18,040/- under 20 invoices between 3.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. In purported discharge of the liability the defendant issued 20 cheques between 3.12.2008 and 10.1.2009. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The invoices were acknowledged by the defendant in token or receipt of the goods. The defendant also admitted his liability vide letter dated 30.1.2009 but sought an indulgence from the plaintiffs to indicate repayment schedule. Despite several notices, the amount due was not paid and the plaintiffs also instituted proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which is still pending. As could be seen from the order dated 18.3.2011, the hearing of the summons for judgment was adjourned on 16.8.2010 to 16.9.2010 and further adjournment was granted on 14.1.2011. Though an advocate had entered appearance for the defendant, no reply was filed to the summons for judgment. The court by its order dated 18.3.2011 made summons for judgment absolute under Order XXXVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The suit was also decreed accordingly. This has not been challenged by the defendant at all and the decree has attained finality. The plaintiffs thereafter applied for drawn up decree and the decree was drawn up on 31.10.2012. As no payment was coming forth from the defendant, the plaintiffs took out the present Chamber Summons on 6.9.2013 and served a copy thereof upon the defendant. The counsel for the applicants states that it was served upon the defendant in September-2013 itself which has not been disputed. The reliefs sought in this chamber summons are as under:-
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant/Judgment Debtor herein to file affidavit stating the particulars of all his assets (movable and immovable) as provided in Order XXI Rule 41 Sub-rule (2) of the Code of civil Procedure ; In case of disobedience of order by Defendant/Judgment Debtor :
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass necessary orders as provided in Order XXI Rule 41 Sub-rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia detaining the Defendant/Judgment Debtor in the civil prison ;
(c) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the matter ;
(d) For cost of this Chamber Summons.”
4. On 4.12.2014 the defendant sought time to file a reply. Despite that, no reply was filed. On 9.6.2015, the defendant was given last chance to file affidavit of reply.
5. The defendant filed an affidavit affirmed on 15.6.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the first affidavit) in which the defendant stated that the chamber summons was not maintainable since all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree has been passed, have to be dealt with only by the executing court and this court was not an executing court. At the same time without prejudice to the contentions as stated above, the defendant disclosed in paragraph-5 the assets which he had. Paragraph-5 reads as unde
