1997 Supreme(Del) 998

High Court Of Delhi
SATISH KHOSLA - Appellant
Versus
ELI LILLY RANBAXY LIMITED - Respondent
Criminal 8 of 1997
Decided On : 12/12/1997

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c)(iii) — Criminal contempt — Civil suit for specific performance of agreement — Relief of stay not granted — Another suit filed — Concealed rejection of grant of relief in earlier suit — Sought stay for not disturbing or interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession, use and occupation of — Granted — Appealed against — Contempt petition for criminal proceedings for filing proceeding and application intentionally and deliberately — Alleged : Abuse of process of law, deliberate attempt to hamper and obstruct due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice and fraud upon court — Suppressed material facts — Not come with clear hands — Over-reached the court — Necessary to punish as a contempt — Conduct abuses and mockery of judicial process — Lawyer should have refused to move for — Played fraud upon court — Cannot be heard unless it purges itself of the contempt — Warned to be move careful in future — Suit dismissed — Appeal allowed — Contempt petition disposed of.

       Held:

       In our view, the arguments are wholly fallacious. A party must come to the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. In our view, a litigant, who approaches the court, must produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation and he must also disclose to the Court about the pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and the result thereof. In the present case after suit No.3064/96 had been first listed before the Court on 17th December, 1996 no stay had been granted to it till 20th January, 1997 in spile of three hearings having taken place before the Court. It was only after 20th January, 1997 when the case was adjourned to May 1997 that the respondent filed the second suit and though in one of the paragraphs it is mentioned that it had filed an earlier suit for injunction, however, it did not disclose to the Court cither in the plaint or in the application as to what had transpired in the Court on the dates when the said suit was fixed nor it was disclosed to the Court that injunction has not been granted in its favor by the Court and the relief claimed in the application in the earlier suit was almost similar to the relief which had been claimed in the subsequent suit. In our opinion, it was obligatory upon the respondent to disclose to the Court that in the application filed in the earlier suit a similar relief had been claimed, however, the Court had not granted the said relief. In our view, if these facts were before the Court on February 6, 1997 when the second suit came up for hearing before it, may be Honble the Single Judge was persuaded not to grant any ex pane slay in favor of the respondent. Moreover, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to register the agreement of lease, it appears to us that the plaintiff could not claim an injunction which had already been claimed in Suit No. 3064/96. We are, thereforee, of the opinion that the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit. This in our view is clearly over-reaching the Court.

       It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties, by striking out pleadings under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 16 or in some other manner. But it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus ex-tends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice.

       In our view, by withholding the plaint of the earlier mil from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit the respondent has not been able to get the injunction, the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit.

       We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over-reach the Court and the respondents have played fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. Respondents cannot be heard in the case unless it purges itself of the contempt so committed and in our view it can only be if we noneuit the respondents in Suit No.261/97. While, thereforee, we do not propose to take action against the respondent for contempt except to issue a warning to respondent No.2 to be more careful in future, we direct the dismissal of the suit (being Suit No.261/97) itself. While, thereforee, allowing this appeal, we dismiss Suit No.261/97 and dispose of the contempt petition in the above terms.