Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs Shri Puran Chandra Gupta on 25 February, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. CONC No.425/2021
Parties Name
Manoj Kumar Agrawal
vs.
Shri Puran Chandra Gupta & Another
Date of Order 25 /02/2021
Bench Constituted Division Bench :
Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Justice Virender Singh
Order passed by Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for reporting No
Name of counsels for parties Petitioner - Manoj Kumar Agrawal present
in person.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph numbers -
ORDER
(25.02.2021)
Per : Prakash Shrivastava, J.
This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner for initiating the contempt
proceedings against the respondent No.1 - 19th Additional District Judge
and Commercial Court, Bhopal, who has decided the petitioner's
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by the order dated 09.01.2021.
2. Petitioner present in person submits that the respondent No.1 has
committed a contempt by not referring and not following the binding
precedents, which were filed by the petitioner along with the written
arguments. He further submits that out of 23 precedents filed before the
respondent No.1, 17 have not been referred in the order and 06 have not
been followed deliberately. In support of his submission, he has placed
CONC .No.425/2021
reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shri
Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri
Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446 and has further submitted that not
following the binding precedent amounts to contempt of court.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record.
4. There is a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the
contempt petition raised by the office stating that the petitioner had remedy
of filing MCC under Chapter-2, Rule 10 sub-rule (7) of the High Court of
M.P. Rules, 2008 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Having regard to the nature of proceedings, the office objection is
overruled.
6. The petitioner had approached the respondent No.1 - Commercial
Judge by filing objection under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the
award of the arbitrator dated 29.05.2019. The respondent No.1 after giving
due hearing to the petitioner by a detailed reasoned order has rejected the
same. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra (supra). In that case, the
Supreme Court has held as under :
"16. Our view that a deliberate and a mala fide
conduct of not following the binding precedent of the
High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge
the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide
act of distinguishing the binding precedent, even
though it may turn out to be mistaken."
7. As per the aforesaid pronouncement, if there is deliberate and mala
fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision and
there is disobedience of the specific order of a superior court then such
conduct may fall within the purview of the law of contempt.
8. In the present case, the plea raised by the petitioner is that though 23
judgments were filed along with the written arguments but 17 have not been
referred by the respondent while rejecting the application under Section 34
of the Act of 1996. It is not the case of the petitioner that all the 23
judgments were cited during the course of arguments before the respondent.
CONC .No.425/2021
9. A perusal of the order passed by the respondent reveals that he has
dealt with the arguments, which were advanced before him and the material,
which was brought to his notice. We have minutely examined the order dated
09.01.2021 passed by the respondent and we are of the opinion that the
respondent has not deliberately and malafidely ignored the judicial
pronouncements, which were said to have been filed along with the written
arguments. We are also of the view that there is no deliberate disobedience
of any order of the superior court by the respondent. The Supreme Court in
the matter of KANWAR SINGH SAINI Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
(2012) 4 SCC 307 has held that :
"38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-
criminal in nature, the standard of proof required is in the
same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged
contemnor is entitled to the protection of all
safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal
jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must
be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of
justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within
the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest
only on surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata
Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B., this Court observed as
under: (AIR p.193, para 9)
"9. A question whether there is contempt
of court or not is a serious one. The court is
both the accuser as well as the judge of the
accusation. It behoves the court to act with as
great circumspection as possible making all
allowances for errors of judgment and
difficulties arising from inveterate practices in
courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear
case of contumacious conduct not explainable
otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be
punished......... Punishment under the law of
contempt is called for when the lapse is
deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in
defiance of authority. To take action in an
unclear case is to make the law of contempt do
duty for other measures and is not to be
encouraged."
CONC .No.425/2021
10. Having regard to the factual position, we are of the opinion that no
case for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondent is made
out.
11. It is made clear that no other point was urged and no other material
was pointed out by the petitioner during the course of argument.
12. Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
V
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.02.25
16:54:42 +05'30'
