Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Reuben and S.K.Das JJ.
Subodh Gopal Bose
Versus
Dalmia Jain &.Co.Ltd.And Ors.
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 77 of 1950 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 19, 1950
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Injunction order - Disobedience - Acts constituting contempt - Interpretation of order - Liability of party to order for disobedience in different capacity - Aiding and abetting disobedience - Contempt proceedings against managing agents and other officers of company - Liability.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner obtained an order of injunction restraining opposite parties from dispossessing or disturbing his possession of lower Murli hill. Opposite party 1, Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd., were a party to the suit and the injunction order. They committed several acts of disobedience, including using a road which cut through plot No. 168 of village Baknaur and entered upper Murli hill between boundary pillars 2 and 3, constructing a new siding on plot No. 44 between the main line of the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway and the acquired land near the Directors bungalow, and interfering with the old Murli hill siding. The other opposite parties were the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Sasaram, the Sub-Inspector of Police, police station Rohtas, the Attorney and Secretary of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd., the Quarry Manager, Rohtas Quarries Ltd., and the Rohtas Quarries Ltd. The petitioner filed a rule to show cause why the opposite parties should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. were guilty of disobeying the order of injunction. The Court found that the road which Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. were using was not the old District Board road shown in the maps, and that their user of plot No. 168 amounted to a contravention of the injunction order. The Court also found that the construction of the new siding and the interference with the old Murli hill siding constituted acts of disobedience. The Court discharged the rule against the other opposite parties, holding that there was no evidence that they had aided or abetted the disobedience of the order of injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. were guilty of disobeying the order of injunction? 2. Whether the other opposite parties were guilty of aiding or abetting the disobedience of the order of injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the order of injunction as restraining Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. from dispossessing or disturbing the petitioner's possession of the entire surface of lower Murli hill, with the only exception of the old District Board road. The Court found that the road which Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. were using was not the old District Board road, and that their user of plot No. 168 amounted to a contravention of the injunction order. The Court also found that the construction of the new siding and the interference with the old Murli hill siding constituted acts of disobedience. 2. The Court held that the other opposite parties were not guilty of aiding or abetting the disobedience of the order of injunction. The Court found that there was no evidence that the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the Sub-Inspector of Police had acted in bad faith in passing orders under Sec.144, Criminal P. C., or that the Attorney, Secretary, or Quarry Manager of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. had committed any personal act which the order of injunction sought to restrain. The Court also found that the Rohtas Quarries Ltd. had not been involved in any of the acts of disobedience.
Final Decision: The Court passed an order under the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 39, Civil P. C., that the property of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Company Ltd. in upper and lower Murli hill be attached. The Court discharged the rule as against the other members of the opposite party. Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. were ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner, and the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and the Rohtas Quarries Ltd. were awarded costs from the petitioner.
Das, J.
1. On the application of Sri Subodh Gopal Bose, whom I shall hereafter call the petitioner, this Court issued a rule on the opposite parties, eight in number, to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court, either for wilful disobedience of an order of injunction passed by this Court on 16-32 1949, or for aiding or abetting the said disobedience. The opposite parties are (1) Messes. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1918, and carrying on business with their registered office at Dalmia-nagar, Police Station Dehri in the district of Shahabad ; (2) Sri R. N. Pandey Sub divisional Magistrate, Sasaram; (3) Sri B Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Rohatas, district "Shahabad; (i) Sri Hari Dutt, described as Attorney for Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd.; (5) Sri K. B. Upadhaya, described as Secretary of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. and of Messrs. Rohtas Quarries Ltd.; (6) Sri Fakirchand Maheswari, Quarry Manager, Rohtas Quarries Ltd.; (7) Sri Shanti Prasad Jain, alleged to be the managing Director of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd.; and (s) the Rohtas Quarries Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1918, and carrying on business with their registered office at Dalmia-nagar, Police Station Dehri in the district of Shahabad.
2. The facts and circumstances which led to the order of injunction referred to above, have been set out in detail in Subodh Gopal Boss V/s. Province of Bihar, A.I.R. (97) 1950 Pat. 222 :(31 P.L.T. 100). It is, I think, unnecessary to set out again those facts in detail. There have been a series of protracted litigation with regard to upper and lower Murli hill, and the facts relating to that litigation have been stated and re-stated in several reported decisions, to some of which a reference was made by us in Subodh Gopal Bose V/s. Province of Bihar, A. I. R. (87) 1950 Pat 222 : (31 P. L. T. 100). All that is necessary in the present case 13 to give a very brief resume of the facts so far as they are relevant here.
3. On 1-4-1908, Messrs, Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co., Ltd., obtained leases from Government in respect of Murli hill, Messrs. Octavius Steel Co. were then the managing agents of the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. The two leases were for twenty years, and related one to upper Murli hill and the other to lower Murli hill. It may be noted that in the lower Murli hill, Government did not have any night in the surface. On 10-12-1910, in Notification No. 30 (50-L. A. of that date, Government delaclared its intention to acquire a semi-circular piece of land in lower Murli hill, within village Sumhauta, comprising an area of 30.97 acres for the construction of sidings of the Dehri Rohtas Tramway Co., now known as the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. The acquisition was completed and possession delivered on 12-7-1912. The position of this semi-circular piece of land will appear from the map which was prepared at the time of the acquisition. This map is marked Y and is part of the annexure to the affidavits filed en behalf of Messrs. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd., Messrs. Octavius Steel Co, were also the managing agents of the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. at the time. In 1913, the record-of-rights was finally published; but the survey maps of the two villages Baknaur and Samhauta, within which lower Murli hill was comprised, wore prepared is the years 1911-12. They are Exs. A-l and A2 forming part of the annexure of the affidavits filed by the petitioner. In 1916-17, a further acquisition was made of 1.533 acres within lower Murli hill, for a re-alignment of the Murli siding in village Samhauta. The map relating to this second acquisition is marked x. I should have stated that in the declaration relating to the acquisition of 1910-12, it was made clear that only the surface land was being acquired and
"only such parts of the mines and minerals as may be necessary to dig or carry away or used in the construc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
