Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.A.PUJ, R.DAVE
SHARAD BANSILAL VAKIL - Appellant
Versus
SUO MOTU - Respondent
CIVIL APPLICATION 55 Of 2006
Decided On : 03/31/2006
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 14 (2) – Appellant who is a senior advocate practicing in this court started ringing appellant upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing switched off phone while going out of court room so as to see that court is not disturbed - When single Judge noticed that phone of the appellant had started ringing in court issued notice to appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why should not be punished for ignoring directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring - Notice was made returnable relevant extracts of said newspapers have been annexed as Annexure to impugned order - Judge has observed in impugned order that report says that Bar has stated to said reporter that since after his appointment Justice did not regularly sit in Court and does not work for more than two hours – Held,Criminal Court Courts Administrator Lord while dealing with a case of a Solicitor not complying with direction of court whether it amount to contempt punishable by order to cost it is held that it is of course vitally important for administration of justice that Solicitors in less than counsel should assist court by co-operating with its administrators and complying with court s directions whether they come from judge as a request for help or as orders to be obeyed - Nowhere is co-operation more important than at Central criminal Court where enormous number of courts and cases presents special difficulties and demands maximum of mutual trust and goodwill if justice to all is to be done fairly and quickly - But not every failure to co-operate or refusal to assist court is a contempt, and not every dereliction of duty or discourtesy to court is a contempt as was laid down in judge in Nigeria was to give a reserved judgment - He directed both counsel to attend - One of them did not do so judge held that his absence from Court without leave amounted to a contempt and fined him Pound - Privy Council held that it was not a contempt of court – Appeal allowed (Para 73)
( 1 ) (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE)This appeal has been directed against the order dated 24. 2. 2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006 in Misc. Civil application No. 27 of 206.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as under: (1) On 17. 2. 2006, in one of the courts, mobile phone of the appellant, who is a senior advocate practising in this court, started ringing. The appellant, upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing, switched off the phone while going out of the court room so as to see that the court is not disturbed. When the learned single Judge noticed that the phone of the appellant had started ringing in the court, he issued notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act )for ignoring the directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring. The notice was made returnable on 24. 2. 2006. It was also directed that the appellant should remain present in the court on that day. The said proceedings were registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 2006. (2) The appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006, which came up for hearing on 24. 2. 2006, under sec. 14 (2) of the Act with the following prayers:"a. to allow this application and cause the matter to be placed together with a statement of facts of the case before the hon ble the Chief Justice for such direction as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial of the charge against the applicant. B. to extend the time for the filing of affidavit-in-reply to miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27 of 2006 by the applicant till expiry of one week from the date of order of this hon ble Court on this Miscellaneous Civil Application. C. to stay pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, further proceedings in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27 of 2006. D. to grant such other and further relief as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper. "in the said application the appellant submitted that looking to the provisions of sec. 14 (2) of the Act, and more particularly in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of mohmad Zaher Khan v. Vijai Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 642, the appellant had the option to have the charge against him heard by some judge or judges other than the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing he was alleged to have committed contempt. In para 2. 2 of the said application, the appellant has explained the circumstances in which his mobile phone had rung and that he felt sorry for ringing of his mobile phone in the court room. (3) On 24. 2. 2006, when the said application " M. C. A. No. 47 of 2006 " was placed for hearing, the learned single Judge did not pass any final order on the said application and adjourned the hearing to 16. 3. 2006 by passing an order incorporating some other facts. According to the learned single Judge, for the reasons stated in the said order, no final order was passed on the said application. However, the learned single Judge assured the learned counsel for the appellant that before proceeding further in the matter, he would certainly pass an order on the application. (4) According to the facts incorporated in the impugned order, due to the incident of ringing of mobile phone of the appellant, the Bar association of Gujarat High Court had passed resolutions, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the said order. So far as the first resolution is concerned, which pertains to intervention of the Bar Association in the said matter, the learned single Judge observed that it was for the Bar to decide as to what the Bar should do. Similarly, so far as the second resolution is concerned, the learned single Judge observed that it had nothing to do with the contempt matte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
