The main legal point established in the judgment is that conduct constituting criminal contempt of court, such as using insulting language, casting aspersions on counsel, and obstructing the due course of judicial proceedings, can be mitigated by a prompt, unreserved, and unqualified apology acknowledging the duty of a counsel to the court.

Headnote:
Criminal Contempt - Conduct of Respondent - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c) - 28.01.2009 - The court found the respondent's conduct during court proceedings to constitute criminal contempt of court. The respondent's conduct included using insulting language, casting aspersions on counsel, and obstructing the due course of judicial proceedings. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology, expressing regret and acknowledging the duty of a counsel to the court. The court accepted the apology and disposed of the petition.
Fact of the Case:

The case concerns the conduct of the respondent during court proceedings in two cases. The court found the respondent's conduct to constitute criminal contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the respondent's conduct to constitute criminal contempt of court. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology, expressing regret and acknowledging the duty of a counsel to the court. The court accepted the apology and disposed of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's conduct during court proceedings constituted criminal contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's conduct, including using insulting language, casting aspersions on counsel, and obstructing the due course of judicial proceedings, constituted criminal contempt of court. The court also considered the prompt, unreserved, and unqualified apology tendered by the respondent, acknowledging the duty of a counsel to the court.
Final Decision: The court accepted the respondent's apology and disposed of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. - This case concerns the conduct of the respondent on 28.01.2009 during court proceedings in Co.A(SB)6/2008 and Co.A.(SB)7/2008, titled as "Sonia Khosla &Anr. v. Vikram Bakshi & Ors." and Mr. R.P. Khosla v. M/s Montreaux Resort (P) Limited & Ors." respectively. The learned Single Judge found the respondent's conduct as constituting criminal contempt of court. The case was referred to a Division Bench. The order of 28.1.2009 reads as under:

"1. CA No. 1000,1290 & 1446/2008 in Co. A (SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 1001/2008 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 filed by the appellants are under hearing by this court. Appellant has already been heard on these applications and learned counsel for the respondents was being heard when the matter was adjourned to today to make the submissions in reply.

2. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the appeal filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board and had opened submissions that the appellant cannot be permitted to set up case not pleaded in the petition before the Company Law Board. It was also their contention that the appellant cannot modify or vary the petition filed on 13th August, 2007 by way of filing an additional affidavit about six months thereafter on 30th January, 2008. Reliance was placed on the memorandum of understanding between some of the parties which was the basis of the petition before the Company Law Board.

3. The applications before this Court are in the nature of a review of hearings wherefrom a brother colleague has recused himself for reasons of scandalous averments contained in CA No. 1000/2008. It is well settled that consideration of any application has to abide by judicial record which is placed before the court. Fully conscious of the well settled legal position, unfounded allegations before even submissions could be completed by counsel have been made.

4. The matter was adjourned at request of counsel for the respondents to today. During the Intervening period CA No. 133/2009 in Co.A(SB) No. 7/2008 and CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 have been filed on behalf of the applicant.

5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, the applicant insisted on arguing CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 27/2009 & 31/3009 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 objecting to the appearance of learned counsel on the other side on the ground that they have no right to appear.

6. Counsels for the respondents were heard and have drawn my attention to the memo of parties filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board wherein this company was arrayed as the respondent no. 1 and was represented by counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 before this court. Counsels relied on paras 3 to 9 of order dated 31st January, 2008 passed by the Company Law Board at page 60 of Co.A(SB) No. 6/2008. In this background, inasmuch as counsels had appeared for the respondents before the Company Law Board and the present petition in appeal being continuation thereof, I saw no reason as to why they cannot continue to complete the arguments in the part-heard matter. It was pointed out that no such objection was ever raised even though the same counsel have been appearing in the matter right from the first date when the respondents first put in appearance. Caveat is also stated to have been filed.

7. In this background, Mr. Vibhu Bhakru, Advocate who has been addressing arguments was asked to resume arguments on the part-heard application. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Khosla rose and started gesticulating. He interrupted the court proceedings in a loud voice making allegations that the counsels appearing in the matter have no right of audience in the matter and that proceedings in this court are not as per law. All requests to him to contain himself, to resume his seat and permit respondents' counsel to complete his submission did not bear any fruit. Mr. Khosla continued to interrupt the court proceedings in