Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
ICICI Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Manish Goel & Others - Respondent
Cont.Cas(C). No. 320 of 2020 & CM. Appln. No. 13548 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
For the Appellant :Puneet K. Bhalla, ChetnaBhalla, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Yatish Kumar Goel, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly focusing on wilful disobedience and the consequences of breaching a court order.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act - Wilful Disobedience - 1971 - Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019 - Sections 10, 12 - The court discussed the wilful disobedience of the respondents against the restraint order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019. The key legal provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Sections 10 and 12, were interpreted to establish the respondents' wilful breach of the court order, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order dated 30.04.2019, which restrained them from writing any email or filing any complaint against the petitioner bank and its officers. Despite the restraint, the respondents continued to write defamatory emails, leading to the petitioner filing a petition for contempt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order dated 30.04.2019 by repeatedly sending defamatory emails, and attempted to justify their conduct without complying with the court order. The court issued a notice of contempt to the respondents and directed them to show cause as to why they should not be punished for wilfully disobeying the court order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the wilful disobedience of the respondents against the court order, their attempts to justify their conduct, and the petitioner's plea for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the respondents' repeated defiance of the restraint order dated 30.04.2019 constituted wilful disobedience, and their attempts to justify their conduct did not absolve them of the breach. The court's decision to issue a notice of contempt was based on the respondents' failure to comply with the court order.
Final Decision: The court issued a notice of contempt to the respondents and directed them to show cause as to why they should not be punished for wilfully disobeying the court order. The case was listed for further proceedings, with the respondents required to be personally present.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019, where by Respondents were restrained from writing any email or from filing any complaint against the petitioner bank and its officers.
2. As per the Petitioner, after the passing of the order dated 30.04.2019, though Respondents No. 1 and 2 did not write any email or approach any forum against the petitioner, however, Respondent No. 3 who is the brother of Respondent No. 1 and son of Respondent No. 2 and also their advocate, started writing emails on their behalf.
3. Petitioner bank had filed a suit against the respondents being CS. No. 1526 of 2018. By order dated 03.05.2018, the court restrained the respondents from writing any email or complaint against the petitioner bank before different for a or authorities.
4. It is contended that Respondent No. 3 intentionally, knowingly, and willingly in wilful defiance of order dated 03.05.2018 started writing emails, raising false and frivolous disputes and allegations against the petitioner bank before different authorities.
5. It is contended that the petitioner bank thereafter filed a petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which was listed on 30.10.2018 before the Trial Judge. The court issued notice to show cause to the Respondents and despite being put to notice, Respondents did not stop writing false and frivolous mails. It is contended that Respondent No. 3 wrote emails on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2 with their knowledge and consent.
6. It is contended that despite the restraint, Respondents did not refrain from their conduct and accordingly, Petitioner bank filed a fresh contempt petition before this court (Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019) and also filed an application seeking restraint against the respondent from writing emails/raising any grievance before different forums qua the loan account number LBDEL0000747368.
7. This court, by order dated 14.02.2019 in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019,issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them and adjourned the case to 20.03.2019. On 20.03.2019, despite service, none appeared for the Respondents and accordingly, bailable warrants were issued returnable for 30.04.2019.
8. On 30.04.2019, in the presence of the Respondents, this court once again directed respondents not to write any email/complaints against the petitioner bank to different forums.
9. It is contended that Respondents, in complete defiance of order dated 30.04.2019, again sent defamatory emails on 15.06.2020 to the petitioner bank and on this occasion even made false allegations against the advocates representing the petitioner bank. It is contended that this conduct was once again repeated on 17.06.2020. As such, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents for wilful breach of order dated 30.04.2019.
10. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents on 29.06.2020. By order dated 29.06.2020, this court also restrained the respondents from committing any further breach of order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Cont. Cas. (C) 102/2019.
11. No reply has been filed to the petition by Respondents No. 1 and 3. Reply has been fined only by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has filed his reply through Respondent No. 3 as his advocate.
12. On 20.07.2020, Respondent No. 3 appeared in person also and sought time to file reply, but no reply has been filed by him. On the other hand, he has filed a reply as an advocate for Respondent No. 2 on 27.07.2020.
13. On 19.08.2020, Respondent No. 3 made a statement that no separate reply was to be filed by Respondent No. 1 and 3 and they adopted the reply filed by Respondent No. 2.
14. In the Reply filed by the Respondent No. 2 and adopted by Respondent No. 1 & 3, no respons
