The Court's order and authority must be respected and complied with, and any act or statement that tends to lower the authority of the Court constitutes contempt of court.

HANSARIA, C. J.

( 1 ) SHRI S. P. Nanda, the Managing Director of Orissa State Financial Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), has faced this proceeding initiated by this Court suo motu on 14-11-1990 being prima facie satisfied from the averments made by the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 5556 of 1990, arising out of O. J. C. No. 4213 of 1990, about commission of criminal contempt by the Managing Director inasmuch as the acts and words attributed to him tended, inter alia, to lower the authority of this Court. Pursuant to show cause notice issued on that day, the Managing Director appeared in person on 16-11-1990 and denied the averments made by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit along with which affidavits of some other employees of the Corporation were filed to support the stand taken by the Managing Director in his affidavit. Because of the denial by Shri Nanda of the averments, made by the petitioner, she filed her rejoinder on 19-11-1990 and thereafter examined herself in support of her case. The examination, however, took place on 26-11-1991 as the petitioner could not make herself available earlier because she was away at Bombay for a long period in connection with the treatment of her son in Tata Memorial Hospital. The petitioner was duly cross-examined. Arguments of learned counsel of the parties were heard on 18-12- 1991.

( 2 ) THE crux, of the allegation made by the petitioner against Shri Nanda is that when on 13-11-1990 she had gone to the office of the Corporation situated at Cuttack with a certified copy of this Court's order passed on 12- 11-1990 along with a banker's cheque for Rs. 10,000/- and had met Shri Nanda at about 2 p. m. in his office and requested him to act in accordance with the order of 12-11-1990, Shri Nanda after going through the certified copy of the order suddenly flared up and contemptuously threw away the certified copy and the banker's cheque on the face of the petitioner and in a very angry and loud voice asked the petitioner to go out. The further allegation is that Shri Nanda then uttered very harsh and disparaging remarks against this Court in particular and the entire judiciary in general.

( 3 ) THE defence of Shri Nanda is that the petitioner had not met him on 13-11-1990 not only at about 2 p. m. but during his entire stay in the office on that day which was from about 1-30 p. m. to 6-45 p. m. This stand of Shri Nanda has been supported by (1) his two Personal Assistants, (2) the peon of the Corporation

attached to Shri Nanda's office, (3) the Security Assistant of the Corporation, (4) the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation and (5) the Diarist-cum-Despatcher in the Managing Director's Section of the Corporation.

( 4 ) ON the face of what is stated above, the first point for examination is whether the petitioner had at all met Shri Nanda on 13-11-1990 at about 2 p. m. , or for that matter, at any other time. Shri Mukherjee urges that the case of the petitioner in this regard has to be believed because having obtained a certified copy of the order passed by this Court on 12-11-1990 by which it had ordered for the release of the seizure of the hotel in question and had also directed preparation of a list of inventory in presence of the petitioner or her representative, there was every reason for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Corporation at the earliest about the contents of the order on 12-11-1990. It is submitted by the learned counsel that urgency of the matter is writ large on the face of it inasmuch as on special prayer being made, this Court had entertained the writ petition on the date of the filing itself which was 12-11-1990 and had passed the order to release the seizure of the hotel on condition, inter alia, that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - by the next day. It is because of this that urgent certified copy of the order was obtained on 12-11-1990 itself on being so ordered by the Court and banker's cheque of Rs. 10,000/-