Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
ABHAY GOHIL AND SHEELA KHANNA, JJ.
SHYAMLAL VYAS - Appellant
Versus
INDERCHAND JAIN - Respondents
Contempt Petn. 119 Of 2003
Decided On : 08/20/2007
Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 10 - Rule 14 of Advocates Act, 1961 - Notifications 15/17-7-1992, 5-8-1993, 3-8-2005 - The court held that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition and dismissed the application for transfer to Jabalpur Main Seat. The court also found that the advocate, Shri Ashok Vailankar, who had been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, could not appear, act, or plead in any court unless he had purged himself of contempt, as per Rule 14 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court referred to various cases and legal provisions to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed contempt petitions, and the advocate representing the petitioner had been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act. The advocate sought to transfer the case to Jabalpur Main Seat, arguing that the Gwalior Bench did not have jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition. The court dismissed the application for transfer and held that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition. The court also found that the advocate, Shri Ashok Vailankar, could not appear, act, or plead in any court unless he had purged himself of contempt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition and dismissed the application for transfer. The court also found that the advocate, Shri Ashok Vailankar, could not appear, act, or plead in any court unless he had purged himself of contempt.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench to hear the contempt petition, and the eligibility of the advocate, Shri Ashok Vailankar, to appear, act, or plead in any court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 14 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and various legal provisions and case laws to determine the jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench and the eligibility of the advocate to appear in court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for transfer, upheld the jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench to hear the contempt petition, and ruled that the advocate, Shri Ashok Vailankar, could not appear, act, or plead in any court unless he had purged himself of contempt.
( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed two contempt petitions in which Shri Ashok vailankar is appearing as an Advocate/lawyer on behalf of petitioner. There was an objection that he cannot appear, act or plead in the case as he has been convicted under contempt of Courts Act.
( 2 ) PETITIONER has filed I. A. No. 12938/07 for transfer of these petitions to Main Seat. Parties are heard on the application as well as on Contempt Petition.
( 3 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Contempt Petition No. 120/03.
( 4 ) SHRI Raja Sharma, Advocate submitted that the respondent No. 1 Inderchand jain has expired on 1-5-2005 and this fact is in the knowledge of counsel for the petitioner and he has not filed any application for bringing the LR's of the respondent No. 1 on record. Therefore, this contempt petition abates against the respondent No. 1.
( 5 ) ON 25-7-2007, Shri Ashok Vailankar appearing as counsel for the petitioner obtained time to satisfy this Court in being a convicted lawyer in a contempt petition by this Court which is also affirmed by the Apex court and the SLP filed by Shri Vailankar in the Supreme Court against his conviction has already been dismissed by the Supreme court. On 25-7-2007, we have granted time to Shri Vailankar to argue on that question. Liberty was also granted to submit written submission that now can he appear as a lawyer. In the order-sheet decision of the supreme Court against him were also mentioned. Instead of satisfying this Court on the moot question he has filed LA. No. 12938/07, an application for transferring the case to Jabalpur Main Seat in view of the notification dated 15/17 July, 1992, 5-8-1993 and 3-8-2005 as the Gwalior Bench of this Court is not having jurisdiction to hear this contempt petition.
( 6 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties on this application and has also perused the notifications 15/17-7-1992 according to which all petitions challenging the vires of the State or Central Act or statute or any order or rule or regulation/notification/ordinance and petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution shall be heard at Jabalpur. By another notification, on 5-8-1993 issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice all the cases instituted by or against any high Court Judge of Madhya Pradesh or against the Registrar of this Court relating to any matter, shall be heard at Jabalpur and by another notification dated 3-8-2005, according to which all cases instituted by or against any High Court Judge of Madhya pradesh or against Registrar General, Registrar, Additional registrar, Deputy Registrar of this Court, all cases relating to selection or appointment of a judicial officer, all cases instituted by or against a Judicial Officer or Ex-Judicial Officer of Madhya pradesh and all cases instituted by or against an employee of High Court or District Court shall be heard at Jabalpur. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971 for breach of undertaking and the petitioner Shyamlal Vyas has not filed this petition for challenging the vires of any State or Central Act nor it is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution nor it has been filed against any High Court Judge nor against any of the officer mentioned in the notifications. ( 7 ) THE repeated submissions of Shri ashok Vailankar is that the Gwalior Bench is not having any jurisdiction to hear this petition, on the basis of the aforesaid notification, we do not find that there is any force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. This Gwalior Bench is having jurisdiction to hear the contempt petition and it is not barred by any of the notifications mentioned above. We have also asked shri Vailankar whether he can satisfy that he can appear as a lawyer on behalf of the petitioner. His submission is that he has mentioned all the facts in the application and he wants decision thereon. Considering the submissions and after perusal of the
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
