Recently, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a contempt application filed by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association against Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. and others. The Court strongly criticised the applicant’s attempt to misuse contempt proceedings to target judges and senior advocates, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 2,00,000 for the frivolous litigation.
Brief Facts:
The Gujarat Operational Creditors Association filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging civil contempt against the respondents. The applicant claimed that between September 2, 2024, and October 21, 2024, the respondents had repeatedly violated the precedents set in previous judgments, specifically those in District Development Officer v. Maniben Virabhai (2000) and Jakhariya Saleman Manek v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (2024). The alleged contemptuous acts primarily involved requests by senior advocates appearing for the respondents for extensions of ad-interim relief orders, which the applicant contended were in direct defiance of binding precedents.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Khosla, argued that the respondents and their legal representatives had deliberately engaged in conduct amounting to civil and criminal contempt. The core allegations revolved around multiple senior advocates appearing in the matter despite procedural restrictions, as well as their repeated requests for the extension of an interim relief order passed on August 8, 2024. The petitioner contended that such actions were an open challenge to established legal principles and constituted judicial indiscipline. The petitioner also relied on transcripts of live-streamed court proceedings from YouTube to substantiate claims of misconduct by the respondents’ counsel.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned senior advocate for the respondents, Mr. Mihir Joshi, strongly opposed the application, arguing that it was entirely baseless and intended to malign both the respondents and the presiding judges. He emphasised that the extension of interim relief was a judicially considered decision and that no contempt had been committed. He further pointed out that the applicant had failed to challenge the interim relief orders before an appellate forum and was instead misusing contempt proceedings to create unwarranted controversy. Mr. Joshi also highlighted that the reliance on transcripts of live-streamed proceedings was unauthorised and in violation of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr Justice A.S. Supehia and Hon’ble Ms Justice Gita Gopi, found the application to be whole without merit. The judgment noted that the petitioner had deliberately sought to equate routine procedural requests with contemptuous conduct, which was an abuse of legal process. The Court observed that the applicant had ample legal remedies available to challenge the orders in question but had instead opted to initiate contempt proceedings as a means of harassment.
Furthermore, the Court took strong exception to the reliance on transcripts of live-streamed proceedings, ruling that such use violated the Gujarat High Court’s rules, which explicitly prohibit the unauthorised use or transcription of live proceedings as evidence. The judges emphasised that using these materials as evidence was not only impermissible but also an attempt to undermine the court’s credibility. The Court highlighted that Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021, prohibits reliance on live-streamed videos as part of court records or as admissible evidence. The attempt to use these transcripts was deemed a direct violation of court rules and an act of bad faith by the petitioner.
The Court further noted that the allegations against senior advocates and judges were reckless and unfounded. It condemned the petitioner’s attempt to attribute malafide intent to the presiding judges merely for extending interim relief. The judgment also underscored that the petitioner had misinterpreted legal precedents to manufacture a case for contempt where none existed. The Court held that seeking an extension of interim relief, when legally permissible, could not be construed as contempt of court. Such a stance by the petitioner was described as legally untenable and an abuse of judicial processes.
The Court also criticized the petitioner for making unwarranted personal attacks on judges and counsel. The allegations, which included claims of bias and judicial misconduct, were declared baseless and indicative of a deliberate attempt to intimidate the judiciary. The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings should not be used as a tool for settling legal disputes or harassing opponents, and it warned against future misuse of such legal provisions.
The decision of the Court:
In dismissing the application, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the petitioner for wasting judicial time. The amount was to be deposited with the Court Registry within two weeks, failing which further action would be initiated. Additionally, the Court directed the Registry to apprise the Hon’ble Chief Justice regarding the removal of live-streamed proceedings from YouTube after a specified period to prevent misuse.
Case Title: Gujarat Operational Creditors Association v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Supehia, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Gita Gopi
Case No.:R/Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 2559 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate; Mr. Jaydeep M. Shukla, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keyur Gandhi, Mr. Raheel S. Patel, Ms. Isha Hakim & Mr. Yash Dadhich
Picture Source :
