Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
ICICI Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Rashmi Sharma - Respondent
CM(M) 36 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated without evidence of malafide intent or interference with judicial processes; subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to issue contempt notices.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the plaintiff bank for purported overreaching of court processes by serving notice through WhatsApp - Court ruled there was no malafide intent in the additional service method chosen by the plaintiff, as proper service was undertaken through speed post and ordinary processes - The Commercial Court’s order for initiating proceedings against the plaintiff was found to be without jurisdiction and excessive, thus necessitating quashing. (Paras 4-15)
(B) Criminal Contempt - Legal standard - Contempt proceedings can only be initiated if actions interfere with judicial proceedings, which was not established in this case. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Jurisdiction - Only High Courts possess the authority to initiate contempt proceedings against subordinate courts; thus, the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
Respondent defaulted on loan repayment; bank issued legal summons through multiple methods, including WhatsApp, to ensure defendant's presence.
Findings of Court:
Court found no grounds for contempt against the plaintiff as proper procedures were followed and the WhatsApp notice constituted an additional, non-malign intent.
Issues: Whether the actions of the plaintiff constituted contempt of court and whether the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to issue show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court outlined that services beyond traditional methods, in this case WhatsApp, did not amount to overreaching judicial processes if primary methods were correctly followed and noted a need for caution in contempt proceedings.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and facts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court discussions on service notice issues. (Para 7) |
| 3. critique of contempt notice issuance. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument against contempt. (Para 9) |
| 5. jurisdiction and standards for contempt. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. final order and its implications. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J.
CM No. 2057/2022 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 36/2022 & CM No. 2056/2022 (for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2nd December, 2021 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (Commercial Court) in CS (COMM.) No. 2857/2021, whereby show cause notice has been directed to be issued to the petitioner Bank (hereinafter `plaintiff'), to be answered and endorsed through the Chairman, as to why criminal contempt should not be initiated against him for overreaching the process of the Court.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the commercial suit leading to the present petition are as follows:
(i) The respondent (hereinafter `defendant') approached the plaintiff for grant of a car loan cum hypothecation scheme of Rs.5,01,000/- for the purchase of a vehicle. The loan documents were executed and the loan was duly sanctioned to the defendant on 21st November, 2019.
(ii) The defendant defaulted in payments of monthly instalments towards repayment of the loan and consequently, issued a notice dated 16th April, 2021 to the defendant to recall the loan facility available to the defendant.
(iii) In August, 2021, the plaintiff filed a commercial suit for recovery against the defendant which was registered as CS (COMM.) No. 2857/2021.
5. The summons were issued in the commercial suit on 16th August, 2021. The relevant part of the order is set out below:
"Issue notice of suit (in the prescribed form viz. the summons for settlement of issues) as well as the accompanying applications with all the annexed documents to the defendants on filing of the process fee by the plaintiff. In case any address of the defendant(s) is of outstation, the ordinary process be sent through the District Judge concerned.
Process be also sent through registered/speed post AD. The sealed covers containing the summons and complete paperbook of the case be handed over dasti to the plaintiff/counsel for putting the same in the postal transmission. The original postal receipt(s) along with the downloaded tract report from the site of India Post be placed on record by the plaintiff/counsel on the next date.
In case the plaintiff has any e-mail, fax ID and mobile number (having facility of whatsApp/Gims/Sandes App) of the defendant, defendant be served under Rule12 of the Delhi Court Services of Process By Courier, FAX and Electronic Mail Service (Civil Proceedings) Rule 2010. The plaintiff shall file the affidavit qua the same.
In terms of Rule 13 plaintiff is directed to place on record a copy of the plaint and7 documents in electronic format/scanned images in compliance of Rule 13 for forwarding/annexing/attaching the same with the process. Requisite process fee for sending process by e- mail in compliance of Rule 14 be also filed alongwith the copies as above for onward transmission to Nazarat Branch, Tis Hazari Courts for service through e-mail."
6. In terms of the aforesaid order passed by the Commercial Court, the plaintiff took steps for affecting service on the defendant through ordinary process as well as speed post, by filing process fee and sealed covers containing the summons and paper book respectively. Pursuant thereto, steps were taken for affecting service on the defendant by ordinary process as well as through speed post. In this regard, reference may be made to the speed post notices issued and the speed post tracking report, as also the report of the Ahlmad, at
