( 51 ) IT was next contended that even if the Rastogis had committed contempt, it was not of 'such a nature' as to warrant any punishment. The argument is based on Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act. That section says that :'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. 'mr. Tandon maintained that the failure of the Rastogis to deposit the takings with the Receiver did not 'substantially' interfere or tend to interfere 'with the due course of justice'. The reasons which he advanced were more or less the same as those for his submission that the disobedience of the Rastegis was not 'wilful'. He greatly emphasised the fact that no monetary loss had been caused to Vishwanath or anyone else. For, as was apparent from the accounts, the takings were not enough even to pay the Rastogis their weekly amount, and there was no possibility of any surplus. Indeed, he argued, the loss, if any, had been to themselves, because if th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document