Back
2021 Supreme(MP) 300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Prakash Shrivastava, Virender Singh, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Agrawal – Appellants
Versus
Puran Chandra Gupta and Ors. – Respondents
Conc No. 425 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following binding precedents may amount to contempt of court.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Refusal to Follow Precedents - The court dismissed a contempt petition filed against a district judge for not referring and following binding precedents in a decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following binding precedents may amount to contempt, but in this case, the judge had not deliberately ignored the judicial pronouncements and there was no deliberate disobedience of any order of the superior court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition against a district judge for not referring and following binding precedents in a decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judge had not deliberately ignored the judicial pronouncements and there was no deliberate disobedience of any order of the superior court, therefore dismissing the contempt petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the judge's refusal to refer and follow binding precedents in a decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 amounted to contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following binding precedents may amount to contempt, but in this case, the judge had not deliberately ignored the judicial pronouncements and there was no deliberate disobedience of any order of the superior court.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
1. This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondent No. 1 - 19th Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, Bhopal, who has decided the petitioner's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the order dated 09.01.2021.
2. Petitioner present in person submits that the respondent No. 1 has committed a contempt by not referring and not following the binding precedents, which were filed by the petitioner along with the written arguments. He further submits that out of 23 precedents filed before the respondent No. 1, 17 have not been referred in the order and 06 have not been followed deliberately. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446 and has further submitted that not following the binding precedent amounts to contempt of court.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record.
4. There is a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the contempt petition raised by the office stating that the petitioner had remedy of filing MCC under Chapter-2, Rule 10 sub-rule (7) of the High Court of M.P. Rules, 2008 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Having regard to the nature of proceedings, the office objection is overruled.
6. The petitioner had approached the respondent No. 1 - Commercial Judge by filing objection under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the award of the arbitrator dated 29.05.2019. The respondent No. 1 after giving due hearing to the petitioner by a detailed reasoned order has rejected the same. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. Our view that a deliberate and a mala fide conduct of not following the binding precedent of the High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide act of distinguishing the binding precedent, even though it may turn out to be mistaken."
7. As per the aforesaid pronouncement, if there is deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision and there is disobedience of the specific order of a superior court then such conduct may fall within the purview of the law of contempt.
8. In the present case, the plea raised by the petitioner is that though 23 judgments were filed along with the written arguments but 17 have not been referred by the respondent while rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. It is not the case of the petitioner that all the 23 judgments were cited during the course of arguments before the respondent.
9. A perusal of the order passed by the respondent reveals that he has dealt with the arguments, which were advanced before him and the material, which was brought to his notice. We have minutely examined the order dated 09.01.2021 passed by the respondent and we are of the opinion that the respondent has not deliberately and malafidely ignored the judicial pronouncements, which were said to have been filed along with the written arguments. We are also of the view that there is no deliberate disobedience of any order of the superior court by the respondent. The Supreme Court in the matter of KANWAR SINGH SAINI Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI, (2012) 4 SCC 307 has held that:
"38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of
