Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs D.P. Sharma
2004 Latest Caselaw 459 Del

Citation : 2004 Latest Caselaw 459 Del
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2004

Delhi High Court

Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs D.P. Sharma on 4 May, 2004

Equivalent citations: 2004 CriLJ 3151, 2004 (75) DRJ 248

Author: M Sarin

Bench: M Sarin

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 2(b), 11, 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiation of proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for dis-obedience of the interim order passed by the Court on 19.8.2003, staying proceedings in Appeal No.5/2003. The said interim order continued from time to time. It is stated that notwithstanding the said order, respondent No. 1/contemnor continued with the proceedings despite the knowledge of the stay order.

2. Union of India had been arrayed as the respondent through the Additional Secretary, who happens to be respondent No. 1/contemnor. Counsel for Union of India had appeared and was aware of the proceedings.

3. Notice in the contempt petition was issued and detailed affidavit in reply has been filed. It is stated that the said respondent No.1/contemnor was not at all aware of the stay order passed. It is stated that respondent No.1/contemnor was performing hi function as an Appellate Authority and was not a representative of Union of India, even though he had been wrongly arrayed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the detailed affidavit, filed by respondent No.1, he has stated that he has highest regrds for judicial orders, especially being in the Law Ministry. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that neither the petitioner nor the respondent had informed him during the proceedings that there has been a stay of the proceedings in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the respondents/contemnor had not been served with copy of the stay order passed. The basis of the petitioner's case for contempt is that Union of India's counsel, is also the counsel before the Apellate Authority and since he was aware of the order, respondent No.1 would have also known of the order. This is an unwarranted inference. As noted earlier, neither the petitioner nor the respondent in the writ petition placed before the Appellate Authrity in the proceedings, the factum of stay. In any case, respondent/contemnor has expressed his profound regret and tendered his apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court and states that he is abiding by the order, passed by this Court.

5.In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings. Notice is discharged.