Back
High Court Of Delhi
J.R.JINDAL - Appellant
Versus
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA - Respondent
Contempt Civil Petition 401 of 1996
Decided On : 07/02/1999
Contempt of Court - Alternate remedy — Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A rejected on merits — Petition seeking to invoke contempt jurisdiction of High Court in respect of same cause of action is not maintainable.
Held:
Ordinarily a person complaining about disobedience or breach of an injunction order passed by the Civil Court should resort to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC rather than filing a petition in the High Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In this case the petitioner had resorted to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC by filing an application against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge. The said application was dismissed on merits by the learned Civil Judge and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Civil Judge is pending. Having filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and having got it dismissed on merits the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on the same cause of action.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and that the petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 215 and to proceed against the respondents for alleged disobedience of the ex parte injunction order passed by the learned Civil Judge since the petitioner has already resorted to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. It would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution when the petitioner has already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before the Court which passed the injunction order and the said application has been dismissed on merits by the said Court.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was elected President of the Family Planning Association of India, New Delhi Branch (respondent No. l) in the elections held on 31. 12. 1994. Respond ents 2 to 8 were elected Members of the Executive Committee. Pursuant to certain allegations against the petitioner, the Executive Committee of respondent No. l constituted a three members committee to enquire into the allegations and the said committee on 8. 1. 96 submilted a report holding the petitioner guilty of nine charges. In the Extraordinary meeting of the Executive Committee held on 9. 1. 1996 the report of the three members committee was considered and a resolution was passed to take action against the petitioner under Rules of the Association. A "no Confidence Resolution" also was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner tiled a suit for permanent injunction (S. No. 219/96) in the High Court of Delhi praying for a decree declaring that the Extraordinary Meeting of the Executive Committee held on 9. 1. 1996 was null and void and that the resolution passed therein also was void. The said suit was disposed of by the High Court on 14. 2. 1996. As per the order dated 14. 2. 3996 of the High Court, all the allegations made against the plaintiff (petitioner herein) would be enquired afresh by one Mr. K. K. Gupta who would give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and would submit his report within two months. The report of Shri K. K. Gupta would be binding on the parties. In case any action was to be. taken pursuant to the report of Shri K. K. Gupta, the same should be got approved by the General Body of the Family Planning Association of India, New Delhi Branch. If the plaintiff was sought to be removed from the post of President by the Executive Committee or the General Body for reasons other than the allegations which were set out in paragraph 28 of the plaint and were to be enquired into by Mr. K. K, Gupta, then it would be open to the plaintiff to assail the same on grounds admissible in law. Pending the submission of the report by Shri K. K. Gupla and action thereon, Ms. Shiela Thandani would function as Acting President with all the powers of President. In view of the settlement reached between the parties the defendants would not act on the resolution passed on 9. 1. 1996. The Annual General Body meeting of respondent No. 1 Association would be held as scheduled on 15. 2. 1996 but in view of the settlement between the parlies the allegations against the President would not be taken up in the said meeting.
( 2 ) SHRI K. K. Gupta submitted his report on 15. 4. 1996 holding that 7 of the 9 allegations related to certain irregularities and lapses in day to day functioning and administration of the Branch and that the management of the Branch was the collective responsibility of the Executive Committee and, therefore, the blame and responsibility could not be put on one individual. However, the petitioner was held guilty in respect of two allegations. Thereafter the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 19. 4. 1996 discussed the report of Shri K. K. Gupta and resolved that the petitioner be removed from the post of President.
( 3 ) AS per the High Court s order in Suit No. 219/96 any action to be taken pursuant to the report of Shri K. K. Gupta had to be approved by the Genral Body of respondent No. l hence an Extraordinary General Body meeting of respondent No. l was convened on 6. 5. 1996 at 4. 00 P. M. to consider the proposal of the Executive Committee to remove the petitioner from the post of President. Then the petitioner Filed another Civil Suit bearing No. 395/96 challenging the above mentioned decision of the Executive Committee. In the said civil suit the learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte injunction order on 6. 5. 1996 restraining the defendants from holding the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 6. 5. 1996 for considering the agenda of removal of the plaintiff from the post of President. Summons o
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
