Delhi Transport Corporation vs Adwel Advertising & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4093 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Date of Reserve: August 28, 2009
                               Date of Order: October 09, 2009

+ CCP 32/2004 in OMP 448/2003
%                                               09.10.2009
    DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                 .... Petitioner
               Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.

         Versus

         ADWEL ADVERTISING & ANR.                 .... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
                          Mr. Alok Tripathi, Adv.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA


1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
         judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

         JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

12 of the Contempt of the Court with a prayer to punish the

respondent for infringement/deliberate violation of the order dated 24 th

November, 2003. This court passed an interim order on 24 th

November, 2003 to the following effect:

"Notice for 28th January, 2004.

In the meanwhile, the respondent stands restrained from terminating the contracts with the petitioner in regard to display of commercial advertisements on BQSs/KBs subject to regular payment of monthly license fee payable in future. It would be without prejudice to the petitioner's pleas raised in the petition."

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the

respondent/contemnor despite above order of the Court had not paid

monthly license fee regularly and arbitrarily deducted amounts from

the license fee without any reason which amounted to gross violation

and willful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 24 th November,

2003.

3. The respondent in its reply has stated that the application

was not maintainable and correct facts have not been stated in the

application. It is submitted that after passing of order dated 24th

November, 2003, the respondent has been duly and fully complying

with the order in letter and spirit and there was no deliberate violation

or breach of the order much less willful disobedience.

4. It is further submitted that after passing of order dated

24.11.2003 by this court, a clarification was issued by this Court on 3rd

March, 2004 wherein it was clarified that the amount payable under

order dated 24th November, 2003 was regarding current and future

monthly license fee without any deductions whatsoever. It was

observed by the Court that if after the order dated 24 th November,

2003 petitioner has made any deductions from the current monthly

license fee payable by it, the said amount would also be deposited by

it within 4 weeks. It is stated that the respondent in compliance of the

above two orders deposited the entire amount under the cover of its

letter dated 2nd April, 2004 totaling to Rs.12,77,318/- giving a detailed

list of zone-wise/monthly-wise bills. The respondent therefore fully

complied with the order and no cause for contempt was made out.

5. The order passed by this Court as is clear from its language

was a conditional order. If the respondent failed to pay the license fee

as directed by the Court in terms of the existing contract for current

and future period regularly, the petitioner was at liberty to cancel the

license on account of this non-payment and report to the Court. The

non-compliance of the order by the respondent would have directly

resulted into cancellation of the license. Thus, the issue of contempt in

this case would not arise. The weapon of contempt cannot be used in

cases where conditional order is passed. In such cases if condition is

not fulfilled, the interim order exhausts itself and does not help the

respondent at all. Even otherwise the weapon of contempt cannot be

used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for

which alternate remedy in law is provided. The discretion to punish

under contempt is to be exercised by the Court with caution and only

with a view to uphold the majesty of the law and not for execution of

orders.

6. Contempt is a matter between the Court and the

contemnor and the provisions of Contempt of Court Act cannot be used

lightly. Nor can they be used in abundance. In case the respondent in

pursuance of the order dated 24th November, 2003 had failed to

deposit license fee, the petitioner was at liberty to take from the

respondent all advertisement sites and the license of the respondent of

using the advertisement sites would have ended for non-compliance of

the order of the Court. The order being a conditional order had built in

safety mechanism for the petitioner. I therefore consider that this

application under Contempt of Court is misconceived and is not

maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

October 09, 2009                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak