Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Lalit Modi – Respondent
CONT.CAS.(Crl.) 2 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Mr. Saad Shervani, Mr. Tushar Parashar, Mr. Elvin Joshy, Mr. Vatsal Kumar, Ms. Anumeha Singhai, Advocates along with respondent in person, for the Respondent.
Consistent breach of court directions and lack of remorse or contrition can lead to sentencing for contempt of court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Apology - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The contemnor failed to comply with court orders to deposit a significant amount of money and showed no remorse or contrition. The court found the contemnor guilty and sentenced him to four months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The contemnor's consistent breach of court directions and failure to show any remorse or contrition led to the court's decision to sentence him for contempt of court.
Issues: Failure to comply with court orders, lack of remorse or contrition, sentencing under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the contemnor's repeated breach of court directions and lack of remorse as grounds for sentencing under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The contemnor was sentenced to four months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000, with the sentence being kept in abeyance for twelve weeks to allow the contemnor to avail legal remedies.
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2021, CRL.M.A. 6391/2021, CRL.M.A. 20585/2021 & CRL.M.A. 4213/2023
1. The learned counsel for the contemnor says that the contemnor, who is present in court, tenders an unqualified apology to the court. However, there is no affidavit of apology filed to that extent. This apology through counsel comes at a stage when the case is listed for sentencing after the contemnor has been found guilty. No remorse, contrition or apology was offered despite the pendency of these proceedings for over two years.
2. Notice of contempt was issued on 12.02.2021. The learned counsel for the contemnor refers to a reply dated 19.08.2021, wherein the contemnor had said that he was ready to offer an apology. However, if he so desired he could have tendered the apology but he chose not to apologize.
3. Even after the contemnor was held guilty, he showed no remorse or contrition and chose not to file an affidavit of unconditional apology. Albeit, in the interim he had all the convenience of and time for moving an application for stay of the proceedings initiated by the Receiver.
4. On 24.05.2022, this court had noted that despite directions to R- 1 and R-2 to be present in court, they had defaulted in appearance. The reason offered for their default was that the mother of contemnor-Mr. Lalit Modi had passed away, therefore, they were out of Delhi. The court had noted, inter- alia, as under:
"...
3. An e-copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in EFA(OS) 1/2021 has been received by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent in EFA(OS) 1/2021 during the course of hearing. He submits that the delay in filing of the affidavit is much to detriment of the respondent/ BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd especially, since the schedule of payments was to have been filed way back in October 2021, last year.
4. Even the present affidavit officially makes no mention of the amount of over Rs.6 crores which is still to be deposited by Lalit Modi. In terms of the order dated 12.02.2021, more than 23 months have gone by and the respondent/ BDR Builders is deprived of monies as well as the valuable property which continues to be in the possession of Lalit Modi. The said respondent submits that the issue is not only about Rs.6 crores, but of a larger amount of about Rs. 52 crores, which is to be paid by Lalit Modi, to whom the respondent/BDR Builders has paid an amount of Rs. 34 crore
5. The learned counsel for R-3 submits that R-3 too has paid an amount of Rs.18.50 crores to Lalit Modi for the same property, in which both parties claim their respects.
6. The learned counsel for Mr Lalit Modi and Ms Sonia Modi submits that the said persons are in a personal difficulty on account of demise of mother of Mr Lalit Modi. Let an affidavit be filed by the said persons apropos their presence in Delhi for the last one week.
7. The learned Senior Advocate for the respondent submits that their phone records be looked into to ascertain whether they are in Delhi today.
8. The schedule of payments shall be filed before the next date of hearing. In any case, an amount of Rs. 3 crores shall be deposited in this court by Mr. Lalit Modi within four weeks, to be kept in a FDR, till further orders.
..."
5. Although an affidavit, in compliance of the aforesaid order, was filed by the contemnor reiterating his presence in Delhi at the relevant time, his telephone records providing locational evidence have not been filed.
6. The Rs.3 crores, as directed in the said order has not been deposited. Thereafter, at the request of the contemnor, more time was granted to him on 29.11.2022 and 17.04.2023 to deposit the monies. The said orders said are reproduced hereunder:
Order dated 29.11.2022
"...2. Mr Mukul Talwar, the learned Senior Advocate for Mr. Lalit Modi states, upon instructions from the contemnor/respondent that there is an admitted delay in complianc
