The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, Advocates Act, and relevant legal precedents, which established the jurisdiction of the bench and the consequences of a contempt conviction on a lawyer's eligibility to practice.

ABHAY GOHIL, J. :- 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 I.A. 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 application, we do