Back
1981 Supreme(HP) 36
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.D.MISRA,H.S.THAKUR
B.HIMMAT SINGKA - Appellant
Versus
KULDIP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION - Respondent
C.A. No. 1 of 1981
Decided On : 07/20/1981
For the Appellants :M/s S. N. Andley, P. D. Himmat Singka, Anjali K. Verma, N. K. Khanthan, Chhabil Dass, Devinder Gupta and G. S. Ahuja, Advocates. For the Respondents: M/s K. D. Sud and Deepak Gupta.
An undertaking given to the court must be express or specific and must be accepted by the court in clear words. A vague undertaking that has not been accepted by the court cannot be the basis for a contempt of court proceeding.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - UNDERTAKING TO COURT - ESSENTIALS - BREACH OF UNDERTAKING - APOLOGY - ACCEPTANCE - MATERIAL FACTS NOT DISCLOSED - CONTEMPT NOT ESTABLISHED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, directors of a company, were directed by the court to pay a sum of money to the workers as wages along with compensation. The appellants failed to comply with the order and were found guilty of contempt of court. They appealed against the order of contempt.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the undertaking given by the appellants was not express or specific, but was vague and had not been accepted in clear words by the court. The court also found that the appellants had made efforts to settle the matter with the labour leaders and that there was no material on record to show that the allegations of the appellants were false.
Issues: 1. Whether the undertaking given by the appellants was express or specific and had been accepted by the court? 2. Whether the appellants had made efforts to settle the matter with the labour leaders? 3. Whether there was material on record to show that the allegations of the appellants were false?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the undertaking given by the appellants was not express or specific, but was vague and had not been accepted in clear words by the court. The court also found that the appellants had made efforts to settle the matter with the labour leaders and that there was no material on record to show that the allegations of the appellants were false. Therefore, the court held that no offence under the Contempt of Courts Act had been established against the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.
H. S. Thakur, J.—This is an appeal filed by the appellants/contemners under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge (T. R. Handa, J.) whereby the appellants have been punished with simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, for committing the contempt of the court.
2. The relevant facts culminating in the contempt proceedings may be stated in brief. The appellants, besides others, were the Directors of the Company known as Hypina Corbons Limited, Nalagarh. A petition for winding up of the Company was filed in this Court on 31-3-1977. After a protracted trial, this Court on 16-5-1978 passed orders that the affairs of the aforesaid Company be compulsorily wound up and necessary further steps in this behalf be taken. Against this order of the winding up, the Company preferred an appeal being Coy. Appeal No. 1 of 1978. An application under Section 466 of the Act read with rule 9 of the, Company (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for the stay of the operation of the winding up order, was also £led. The then Acting Chief Justice (Justice T. U. Mehta) on 31-5-1978, passed an interim order staying the winding up proceedings. Notices were also sent to the respondents and the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator as also Shri Kuldip Parkash, at whose instance the winding up order was passed, filed reply to the stay application. The matter came up before the then Acting Chief Justice on 27-6-1978 who was pleased to pass the following order :— "Present: Shri S. S. Abuja, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri K. D. Sud for the respondents. Shri K. Kumar Official Liquidator. O. M. P. No. 6 of 1978. Shri Sud who appears for the respondents opposes this application, During the course of the hearing Shri Ahuja who appears on behalf of M/s R. G. Saraf, B. Himmat Singka and S. S. Fatehpuria shows his willingness to give an undertaking that his above named clients are willing to pay off the arrears of the wages of the labourers employed by the Company in the -past or to arrive at some settlement with the labour union with regard to these arrears within one month from now. According to the report of the Official Liquidator the arrears of wages of labourers amounted to about rupees six lakhs about four to six months ago. Shri Ahuja also states on behalf of the above referred clients that in case the arrears of the labour as stated above, are not paid up or settlement is not arrived at within one month, his clients would be liable for contempt of court for breach of the undertaking unless the above referred period of one month is extended by the Court on proper grounds being shown. Shri Ahuja further states that his above referred clients are prepared to defend the various proceedings pending before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Shri Ahuja also states that his above referred clients further undertake to complete the accounts of the company within one month and to hand over all the remaining account books to the Official Liquidator within that time. Shri Ahuja states that the erstwhile servants of the Company are already there to safeguard the property of the Company. Under the circumstances in view of the suspension of the winding up order the official liquidator will not be responsible for safeguarding the property of the Company at Nalagarh till further orders. In view of the above undertaking, the matter be fixed on 2-8-1978. Dasti orders on usual terms. Sd/- C. J."
3. As directed in the above order, the matter was taken up on 2-8-1978 when Shri S. S. Ahuja, Advocate, appeared for the appellants. Till that time the appellants had not honoured their undertaking as contained in the order referred to above. The Court on 2-8-1978 passed an order in the following terms:— "It is found that till this date there has been no settlement about the arrears of wages of Companys labour. Shri Ahuja states that the Directors are already in negotia
