Rajeev Mittal vs Sanjay Goel
2012 Latest Caselaw 2551 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment:19.04.2012.

+     CM(M) 434/2012 & CM Nos. 6843-44/2012

RAJEEV MITTAL                                            ..... Petitioner
                             Through   Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, Sr.
                                       Advocate with Mr. Anil Goel,
                                       Adv.
                    versus

SANJAY GOEL                                           ..... Respondent
                             Through   Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
                                       Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh
                                       Gupta, Adv.
                      AND
+     CM(M) 437/2012, CAV No. 395/2012 & CM Nos.6878-79/2012

NEVILLE A MEHTA                                          ..... Petitioner
                             Through   Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, Sr.
                                       Advocate with Mr. Anil Goel,
                                       Adv.
                    versus

SANJAY GOEL                                          ..... Respondent
                             Through   Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
                                       Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh
                                       Gupta, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.04.2012 &

13.04.2012; contention of the petitioner before this Court is the in

pending proceedings which were proceeding for contempt, the

directions as contained in the aforenoted orders could not have been

passed by the trial Court as the power to initiate contempt under the

provisions of Sections 10 & 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is an inherent power vested with

the High Court alone and the subordinate Court could not have issued

the said directions; the said directions amounting to an illegality being

beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Court are accordingly liable to

be set aside.

2     Arguments have been refuted.

3     Record shows that Sanjay Goel had filed suit No. 21/2012 seeking

an injunction against the defendants Lions Club International District

and others from conducting the election as scheduled for 25 &

26.02.2012; further to provide the list of delegates having voting rights

in the said election.

4 On 07.03.2012 on the statement recorded of the respective parties,

the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit. The statement of the defendant i.e.

T.S. Arora, District Governor, Lions Club International was to the effect

that the fresh election for the second Vice=District Governor will be

held as per constitution of District and International; further prior to

holding of election, list of eligible and registered delegates will be

supplied to the plaintiff within ten days. In view of this aforenoted

statement made by the defendant which was accepted by the plaintiff,

the suit was withdrawn on 07.03.2012.

5 The matter did not rest there. The plaintiff was aggrieved; his

contention was that this commitment had not been honoured; a contempt

petition was filed; this was dated 28.03.2012; certain directions were

given on 30.03.2012. It was finally disposed of on 03.04.2012 wherein it

was noted that the parties are agreeable that the election process

announced may be allowed to be conducted and through e-mail fresh list

of delegates is required which may be registered and prepared up to

07.04.2012 and will be supplied to all the contesting members. This

contempt petition was disposed of with the aforenoted directions on

03.04.2012.

6 The matter again did not rest. A second contempt petition was

sought to be filed by the plaintiff which is dated 10.04.2012. The

petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the notice which has been

issued on this petition; contention being that this is a notice to show

cause which could not have been issued by the subordinate Court as the

power to initiate contempt proceedings vested only with the High Court;

further contention being reiterated that all the directions contained and

passed subsequent thereto on 11.04.2012 and 13.04.2012 were beyond

the jurisdiction of the Court who could not have passed the aforenoted

directions and attention has been drawn to the said directions. Counsel

for the petitioner has placed reliance upon AIR 1979 SC 1528 Babu

Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and another; first submission being that

there was no undertaking given by the Court and no contempt is made

out. The second limb of the argument is that in view of the judgment of

a Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (4) JCC 2574 Syed Nusrat Ali Vs.

State, the power to initiate contempt proceedings vested only with the

High Court and the High Court can alone take cognizance of contempt

having been committed in respect of the subordinate Court; the

subordinate Court can only make a reference to the High Court; it

cannot itself assume jurisdiction under the said Act and issue a show

cause notice as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

7 There is no doubt to this later proposition which has been urged

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The subordinate Court can only

make a reference to the High Court and cannot initiate contempt

proceedings itself.

8 Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a

judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 43 (1991) DLT 567 Amrik

Singh Lyallpuri Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma and Others to support this

submission that a mere issuance of a notice is not an initiation of

contempt proceedings and the limited scope of a limited inquiry is

available with the subordinate Courts and these directions passed on

11.04.2012 and 13.04.2012 were within the scope of this inquiry; it is

not as if the subordinate Court has initiated the contempt proceedings.

This judgment of Amrik Singh Lyallpuri (supra) supports the submission

of the respondent to the extent that if the subordinate Court is moved by

an aggrieved party, the subordinate court may hold an inquiry for the

purpose of making a reference to the High Court and in these

circumstances, it cannot be said that the subordinate court had initiated

proceedings for contempt.

9 However, the question which has to be answered is whether the

directions contained in the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 &

13.04.2012 were in furtherance of the inquiry being made by the

subordinate court as to whether a case of contempt for the purpose of

reference is made out to the High Court or not. This Court is of the view

that these directions do not fall within this encompass. Subordinate court

issued directions on 11.04.2012 which were to the effect that defendant

No. 3 shall also be present in Court for which an e-mail will be sent to

him for the purpose of communication; direction for stay of the election

held on 08.04.2012 was also made; the plaintiff had also been directed

to file his nomination to show as to whether he has filed the nomination

so that if any perjury is made, suitable steps can be taken by the

plaintiff. Directions in the order dated 13.04.2012 are also to the effect

that a Local Commissioner had been appointed namely Advocate Girish

Malhotra to conduct elections as per the undertaking given by the

respondent in the previous contempt proceedings but had not been

adhered to; the fee of the Local Commissioner had also been fixed

giving authority to the Local Commissioner to take all steps including

the forwarding of orders to all the clubs in district 321-1A as well as the

international organization of the lions clubs for compliance.

10 All these aforenoted directions were outside the scope of the

limited inquiry which the subordinate court was permitted to make for

the purposes of holding whether a case for reference to the High Court

for initiation of contempt is made out or not. This is clear from the

import of the said directions. The petitioner has correctly pointed out

that in this background, the impugned judgment suffers from an

illegality as the Court has usurped the powers and invested itself with

the jurisdiction which it did not have. At this juncture, learned counsel

for the respondent submits that he may be granted permission to take

recourse to other legal remedies which are available to him. Needless to

state that if the law permits him, he is permitted to take recourse to such

remedies.

11 Impugned orders thus being an illegality are set aside. Petitions

are allowed.

12    Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.




                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 19, 2012
A