Shri Ved Prakash And Anr. vs Shri Ashok Mehta And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1375 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This is a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 filed by the petitioners against the respondents-contemnors on the plea that they have violated an undertaking given by them to this Court on 7th July, 2000. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the property bearing No. C-52, Soami Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioners filed a suit for possession and damages being S.No.777/98 titled as Ved Parkash and Anr. v. Marudhar Services Ltd. and Anr.. During the pendency of this suit, application was filed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by the petitioners. This application was allowed and the suit was decreed for possession. On 26th May, 2000 the decree for possession of the first floor of the said property comprising of three bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing/dining, kitchen, family lounge was granted in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants-respondents herein. Thereafter the petitioner filed an execution petition being Ex.No.114/2000 for execution of the decree dated 26th May, 2000. This Execution Petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 7th July, 2000. The order passed by the Court on 7th July, 2000 reads as under :-

7.7.2000

Present : Mr.P.R. Aggarwal with Ms.Mala

Goel for the Decree holder and

Mr.Ved Prakash Decree Holder in

person.

Mr.Jayant Nath for the Judgment

Debtor along with Mr.Ashok Mehta

Director of Judgment Debtor in

person.

Ex.No.114/2000

Mr.Ashok Mehta, who is residing in the premises in dispute and is a Director of M/s.Marudhar Services Ltd. has filed an affidavit undertaking to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff on or before 31st January, 2001. He has confirmed that he is exclusively in possession of these premises as on date. He has further undertaken that he shall not sublet or part with the possession of the suit property to any third person. Mr.Ashok Mehta further states that he is duly authorised to record these undertakings on behalf of defendant No. 1. These undertakings are accepted by the Court.

The Judgment Debtors, in accordance with the undertakings furnished to the Court, shall hand-over vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit property to the Decree Holder Ved Prakash on or before 31st January, 2001 and shall not part with the possession to any other person.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/Decree Holder prays that, in view of the undertakings having been accepted by the Court, the Execution be disposed off. Execution Petition stands disposed of in terms of the undertaking.

Learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtors submits that the costs of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to learned Counsel for the Decree Holder within one week.

July 7, 2000 JUDGE

2. The respondents failed to fulfilll the undertaking and complied with the directions of the Court even up to 31st January, 2001. It is the allegation of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 who was residing in the First Floor of the said premises had shifted Along with his families to other premises but still kept the property under his lock and key. The respondents not only failed to abide by the undertaking given by them before the Court, but also violated the orders of the Court. It is averred that respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 31st January, 2001 raised issues in regard to release of security, possession certificate and other documents. This letter was posted on the afternoon of 30th January, 2001 but in fact was even received by the petitioner in the day of 30th January, 2001 itself. This shows ill intention of the respondent.

3. Ultimately, by the process of law and through appointment of a local commissioner, the possession of the premises was taken by the petitioner on 13th March, 2001. In these circumstances, it is prayed by the petitioners that the respondents have violated the undertaking given by them as incorporated in the order of the Court dated 7th July, 2000. Thus they are liable to be proceeded against for violating the orders of the Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and be punished accordingly. The respondents filed a detailed reply to this contempt petition. At the very outset, it is stated in the reply that keys of the premises were offered by the respondents much before 31st January, 2001, but the petitioners refused to accept the keys of the premises in question as the respondents had already vacated the premises and removed their belongings on 29th January, 2001. It is further stated that the respondents in furtherance to the decree of the Court dated 26th May, 2000 and the undertaking given had made all arrangements and had taken requisite steps to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioners, but the petitioners did not cooperate resulting in delay in delivery of possession. It is averred that the present petition has been filed primarily with the intention to harass the respondents. The petitioners refused to hand over the documents in terms of the letter dated 31st January, 2001 like handing over of possession, release of security etc. In fact the respondents had handed over the keys of the premises to Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate and had requested him to hand over the keys to the petitioner and the possession letter etc. The petitioners refused to hand over the documents to the said Advocate. Having left with no alternative, the respondents had filed an application being IA 3136/2001 in S.No.777/98 thereby praying to this Hon'ble Court to allow the respondents to deposit the keys of the suit property in this Court. The same application, in fact, is still stated to be pending. It is specifically disputed that the respondents have deliberately or intentionally violated the undertaking given by them to the Court on 7th July, 2000. The other allegations made in the reply has been specifically disputed and denied.

4. The respondents have also tendered unconditional apology and have prayed for condensation of delay in handing over the keys of the premises to the petitioners.

5. The two vital facts which are not in dispute are that the possession of the premises in question have been taken over by the petitioner on 13th March, 2001 and that the premises had been vacated by the respondents before 31st January, 2001. In paragraph 7 of the Contempt Petition, the petitioners have stated that respondent No. 1 had vacated the premises and shifted to another premises but had not handed over the keys or possession of the premises on 31st January, 2001. There is also no challenge to the fact that in terms of the affidavit filed by the respondent, the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property was to be handed over to the petitioners on or before 31st January, 2001. The sole question that requires consideration of the Court is whether the conduct of the respondent during 29/31st January, 2001 to 13th March, 2001 is intentional or a deliberate attempt to flout the undertaking given by them to the Court or it is a matter which was result of a bonafide apprehension on the part of the respondents as stated in their reply. It is a settled principle that the Court while exercising the special jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is not to consider the merit or de-merit of the order passed. The Court is also not within its jurisdiction to interpret the order except for bare reading of the order as it reads. On the plain reading of the order dated 7th July, 2000 it is clear that the respondents had given an undertaking before the Court by filing an affidavit that they would vacate the premises and hand over the possession of the premises to the petitioner on or before 31st January, 2001. According to the respondents they had made all arrangements to comply with the undertaking and had actually vacated the premises prior to 31st January, 2001 and had handed over the keys to their counsel, which in turn were to be handed over to the petitioners against letter of possession and other allied documents. However, this could not happen resulting in filing of the contempt petition. The present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner on 3rd February, 2001 and the respondent had also filed an application being IA 3136/01 in the suit somewhere in March, 2001. The possession of the premises were given to the petitioners through process of the Court on 13th March, 2001. The respondents have placed on record the copy of the letter which they had written to the petitioner on 31st January, 2001. In that letter, the respondents had requested the petitioner to give possession letter, rent receipt up to 31st December, 2000 and to return the security deposit of Rs. 12,000/- after adjusting the rent for the month of January, 2001. This letter according to the petitioners was received by him on 30th January, 2001. In the entire contempt petition, it is not averred by the petitioner that they had responded to the said letter or not and what were the consequences thereof.

6. Once the respondents had admittedly vacated the premises before 31st January, 2001, there could be hardly any justification on their part to withhold the keys with ulterior motives much less to violate an order of the Court. From the facts on record, it appears that the respondents wanted to abide by the undertaking given to the Court and had removed all the goods and had practically vacated the premises. There might have been certain inactions on the part of the respondents as they could have easily approached the Court and submitted the keys in the Court immediately after 31st January, 2001 which they failed to do. They filed the application for clarification and deposit of the keys in the month of March, 2001. Though according to them, during the interregnum period they had approached the petitioners through their counsel to take the keys but the petitioners had refused to accept the same. To this reply, no rejoinder was filed by the petitioners and in fact the respondents' plea is that the contempt petition has been filed primarily with the intention to harass the respondents and to influence other litigation pending between the parties.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also made reference to certain other litigations pending between the parties with an intention to show that the respondents are bent upon harassing the petitioner and have intentionally violated the undertaking before the Court on 7th July, 2000.

8. Before the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under this Act and punish the respondents for committing the contempt of court, the Court has to be satisfied that the violation of undertaking given by the respondents is intentional and is intended to undermine the majesty of law. In the present case, it is somewhat difficult to come to a finding that the respondents have failed to abide by their undertaking intentionally and with the motive of disobeying the orders of the Court. To return a finding of guilt of contempt, the Court has to examine the attendant circumstances, violation of the orders of the Court and underlining intend of the contemner if the respondents have acted bonafidely and took steps within their power and possession to obey the order of the Court or its undertaking, which a person of a normal prudence would do. The Court would certainly have to examine the case more objectively while ensuring that dignity of law is not infringed. At this stage, I may refer to a Division Bench judgment in the case of Court on Its Own Motion v. Ranjit Bajaj (CM 15886 of 2000 in CWP No. 7639/1995) decided on 30th April, 2003 where the Court examined the principles in relation to punishment for contempt even where the Court held that contemnors were guilty of offence of Contempt of Court. The Court held as under :-

In real substance, it is a conditional deferment of punishment and not the guilt. In other words, the Courts have to derive a balance by reasoning of preferential view between the opportunity to reform and or inflictment of punishment forthwith, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. A beneficial legislation obviously is not punitive and requires liberal construction. To us, it appears that the essence of this reformative procedure is to release the person on probation as an alternative to or in lieu of the sentence/punishment.

18.4 The maxim "Justitia est duplex; severe puniens, et vere praevenniens" by its very virtue imposes dual obligation upon the Courts of considering various facets of severe punishment on one hand and really or efficiently preventing recourse of crime on the other, with object of maintaining dignity of law. The settled principles of law also indicate that there is a duty upon the Courts to remove the cause of litigation. In other words, while providing opportunity to the contemner to reform himself the Court also thereby excepts that he would not indulge in such activities and repeat the offence of disobedience of Court's orders.

9. Reference can also be made to Full Bench judgments in the cases of Court of its Own Motion v. B.D. Kaushik and Ors (FB) and Court of Its Own Motion v. A.J.Phillip 2004(1) 136 PLR 421. In the case of A.J.Phillip Court held as under :-

Before we advert to the same, it will be appropriate to refer to some law on the subject. A Bench consisting of Full Court of Delhi High Court in the case of Court on its own motion Versus B.D. Kaushik and others 1992 (1) PLR 38, by majority view, despite the glaring contempts in face of the court, accepted the apology and deferred the sentence. Their Lordships held as under :-

...With regard to apology in proceedings for contempt of Court, it is well-settled that an apology is not a weapon of defense to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness

(M.Y.Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors.

The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled element who fail to secure by desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud....

xxx xxx xxx

Such causes raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution.... It is high time that we realise that the much chershed judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are in integral part of the system." (M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors.).

Having considered all relevant aspects and authorities, we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemnors deserve the punishment of sentence. The contempt committed by the contemnors is gravest. It cannot be imagined that any contempt worse than the present is possible. It is compounded by the fact that the contempt is not committed by lay contemnors but by the advocates who are officers of the Court.

10. In a famous case known as Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., , taking note of distortion of the Court orders by the leaders of the Narmada Bachao Anodlan, the Court held that freedom of speech and expression is qualified by certain offences and scandalising court is one of such qualification. Their lordships, while dropping the contempt proceedings, held as under :-

After 22nd of July, 1999 when learned amices was appointed, nothing has come to our notice which may show that Ms.Arundhati Roy has continued with her objectionable writings insofar as the judiciary is concerned. She may have now realised her mistake. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to now let the matter rest here and not to pursue it any further. The application (I.A. 14) is accordingly disposed of.

11. Further in the case re : Chandigarh News Line (Indian Express Group , where a misleading and incorrect news item was published totally misquoting the order of the court and the apology was tendered at the very outset, the Court took note of the apology published in the newspaper as we as in the Court and finding that the apology was sincere and bonafide, accepted the same and dropped those proceedings.

12. Similar approach was adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the matter of Anil Panjwani and their Lordships held as under :-

...In the above background, however, we find that not too late in the day better sense prevailed in the saner moments under which he genuinely expressed regrets before us with folded hands and pleaded for permission to withdraw such of the two affidavits filed by him containing the objectionable averments made therein. We have given out due consideration to the request made, in the light of the facts and circumstances enumerated above and particularly the fact that initially he was arrested and sent to jail in connection with this contempt matter where he was lodged for four days before being released on bail. These factors, in our view, weigh in favor of accepting the request allowing him to withdraw the objectionable affidavits, rather than to continue with this matter and send him again to jail, though repentant he is a little late undoubtedly.

For the above reasons, we allow the request to withdraw the affidavits and drop the proceedings with a note of caution that in future he must be careful and may not give rise to any such occasion again. If he does so, this order can always be taken into consideration as a background material.

13. The law vests wide discretion in the Court in such matters. Of Course, the discretion must be exercised essentially in consonance with the principles governing the field. Press is not a mere instrument of propaganda, much less malicious one. It is a field which even provide education and character to the society at large. It must over-reach the temptation to create sensations by spreading false news. It must discard for ever reporting out of malice, jealously and unprotected enthusiasm founded on ill desires. The duty of law in such situation will demand guilty to be punished rather than showing of mercy. Keeping in view the conduct of the respondents before the Court reference can usefully be made to what Swami Vivekananda said :-

Might and Mercyguide the conduct of human beings.

The exercise of Might is invariably the exercise of selfishness.

The exercise of Mercy is heavenly.

14. The above news shows erratic attitude of the contemner who admittedly without verifying the facts and gauging the authenticity of the sources which allegedly gave him information published the news, clearly showing the action to be fauxpas. The responsibility. Disorderly conduct by a journalist besides causing irreparable damage to the institution will also cause serious embarassment to the newspapers itself. No extent of eloquence can justify such irresponsible reporting. The principle of harmony and balance, by its very existence to any legal system carves out exception to such behavior. Such reporting is not a journalism mis-conduct simplicitor but is an offence of serious gravity. Adverse affect and consequences thereof can be discernly and lucidily classified into two categories, one which affects the system and the person concerned transistantly and is likely to whither away by passage of time, while other is a permanent damage caused to the Institution and administration of justice. This conduct would normally be unforgivable. These serious contemptuous acts, that too of such grave nature would hardly leave the Court with much choice. Still there is no proscription on the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the consequences of the apology tendered by the contemners in the interest of justice and to maintain high standards of judicial magnamity.

15. The above enunciated principles indicate the institutional tolerance which the judiciary possesses in the larger interest of the public and administration of justice. Maintaining the majesty of law is the linchpin to the wheels of justice. Curio, are the cases where it would be inevitable for the Court to take recourse to vigours of statute. Such cases where punishing the contemner is essential, have been distinctly explained by different pronouncements and, thus they must be understood in their correct perspective and in institutional interest. One factor which tilts the balance in favor of the condemner to some extent is that a clarification was issued by the paper in the very next issue. According to them, the news was also not published in the later editions of the paper. The contemners tendered unqualified apology before the Court at the very first available opportunity and at no point of time even attempted to support or justify the erroneous and irresponsible act.

16. It is not the case where the respondents have not accepted their fault. He has tendered unconditional apology. The apology has to be examined in light of the circumstances which have been pleaded and in fact greater part of them is not even disputed. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that respondents had vacated the premises prior to 31st January, 2001. They did involve their counsel for handing over the keys of the premises to petitioner, however, they asked for possession certificate and rent clearance receipt. This is somewhat a mistake on the part of the respondents but certainly not such a serious omission or commission which would invite the rigours of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. They also filed an application in the Court but belatedly. All these acts when cumulatively examined do not indicate complete lack of bonafides on the part of the respondents. They certainly could have acted with greater caution and would have filed application at the earliest rather than waiting for the month of March, 2001. For this mistake, they can hardly be held guilty of Contempt of Court. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that they have violated the undertaking given to the Court, it would be a fit case where the Court should accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents, as it is a true, sincere and bonafide regret of their omission. The pendency of other proceedings would be of not much relevance for decision of this petition as the Court of Competent Jurisdiction, where such proceedings are subjudiced, can always pass appropriate orders dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

17. Ergo, I find no merit in this contempt petition and the same is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.