Delhi High Court
G4S Security Service (India) Pvt. ... vs Mr. Sohail Maklai Entertainment ... on 15 May, 2012
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CCP (O) 53/2012 in CS(OS) No.2350/2010
G4S SECURITY SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi,
Advocate.
versus
MR. SOHAIL MAKLAI ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD. & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal,
Advocate.
% Date of Decision : MAY 15, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
ORDER (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
IA No. 9243/2012 (for delay in filing the petition)
This is an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners
for condonation of delay in filing the contempt petition. For the reasons
stated in the application, the delay in filing the contempt petition is
condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CCP (O) 53/2012 in CS(OS) No.2350/2010
1. On scrutinizing the petition it is revealed that the subject matter
of the present contempt petition is the same as in CCP No.35/2011,
which is pending in this Court and is listed on 7 th August, 2012. The
petitioner in paragraph 10 of the present petition has stated as follows:
"That the petitioner has not previously filed
any such or similar petition in the present
matter before this Hon‟ble Court except
CCP No.35 of 2011, which is confined to
the contumacious acts of the Contemnors
related to the cause of action set out in
paragraphs 9(i) and 9(ii) above and this
CCP is with respect to the cause of action
set out in paragraphs 9(i) to 9(iii)
hereinabove."
2. Paragraph 9 of the petition referred to in paragraph 10,
reproduced hereinabove, reads as follows:
"9(i) The cause of action for filing the instant
petition first arose when the defendant No.2
allegedly entered into an agreement on 25th
November, 2010 with M/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt.
Ltd. whereby the defendant No.2 allegedly granted
and assigned broadcasting right on its channel by
way of a first exclusive premier of the impugned
movie „KNOCK OUT‟ in spite of being aware of
the present proceedings being initiated against
them on 22nd November, 2010, being the date
when they were served with the papers and
proceedings of present matter.
(ii) Further, the cause of action again arose on
26th February, 2011, when in terms of the
undertaking on 20th December, 2010, the said
defendant companies and the Contemnors brought
on record the names of the parties in whose favour
they had allegedly created third party rights but
remained silent about the first limb of the order
dated 20th December, 2010 passed by this Hon‟ble
Court.
(iii) The cause of action further arose on 4th
October, 2011 when the Contemnor No.4 affirmed
his affidavit filed in reply to the CCP No. 35 of
2011, and therein denied the undertaking given
before this Hon‟ble Court, which was
categorically recorded in the order dated 20th
December, 2010 inasmuch as such act of denial is
itself contumacious and amounts to contempt of
court."
3. Thus, the petitioner has himself stated that paragraphs 9(i) and
9(ii) are common to CCP No.35/2011 and the present petition.
According to the petitioner, the present contempt petition apart from
paras 9(i) and 9(ii) relates to the cause of action set out in paragraphs
9(iii) only.
4. As per the petitioner himself paragraph 9(iii) relates to the
affidavit dated 4th October, 2011 filed by the contemnor in CCP
No.35 of 2011. A perusal of CCP No.35/2011 also shows that the
affidavit referred to in paragraph 9(iii) dated 04.10.2011 was filed in
reply to CCP No.35/2011. Hence no fresh cause of action has
accrued to the petitioner for the filing of the present contempt
petition, the alleged contumacious conduct referred to in the present
petition being subject matter of CCP No.35/2011, which is pending.
The present petition for the very same contumacious acts cannot
therefore be entertained.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
MAY 15, 2012
ak
