Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 1 Order.
MHCC010013722019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CONTEMPT NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 527 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 5383 OF 2012
Mrs Satibha Ajit Upadhyay And Anr ... Plaintiffs
V/s.
Dr. Narendrakumar B. Gupta and another ... Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI N.G.SHUKLA
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR.BOMBAY
(C.R. NO.63).
DATE : 22-11-2023
Appearance:-
Ld. Advocate Shri. B.A. Singh for the plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 in person.
ORDER
1. Plaintiffs have taken out this notice of motion for initiating
action of criminal contempt against the defendant under Contempt of
Court Act. Defendant filed reply affidavit and opposed notice of motion.
Plaintiff No.2 filed rejoinder affidavit.
-- 1 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 2 Order.
2. I have heard Ld. Advocate Shri. B.A. Singh for the plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 in person filed written argument.
3. Plaintiffs have filed present suit for recovery of money.
Initially, the suit was registered as Summary Suit. By order dtd. 17-09-
2013 below Summons for Judgment suit is registered as Short Cause
Suit. Defendants were directed to deposit Rs.9,00,000/-. Defendant no.
1 made several allegations against the advocate for plaintiffs and the
then Presiding Judge in the reply filed to the application for Summons
for Judgment. So also, defendants had filed M.A. No. 66 of 2017 under
section 340 of Cr.P.C. The said application was disposed off by order
dtd. 21-02-2019. Defendant no. 1 had taken out Notice of Motion No.
1129 of 2019 for recalling order dtd. 21-02-2019. In the said affidavit
on notice of motion, defendant no. 1 had made certain allegations
against the advocate for the plaintiffs and the then Presiding Judge.
Said notice of motion was dismissed by order dtd. 08-08-2019.
Defendants had not challenged order in M.A. No. 66 of 2017. They had
filed application Exh.31 in the present suit for video shooting of the trial
of the present suit and the said application was subsequently
withdrawn. In these said ancillary proceedings, defendant no. 1 had
made several allegations against the then Presiding Judge and Ld.
Advocate for the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs moved the present notice of
motion for initiating action of criminal contempt under section 15(2) of
the Contempt of Court Act.
4. Ld. Advocate Shri. B.A. Singh for the plaintiffs argued in
support of contents in affidavit filed in support of notice of motion. He
-- 2 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 3 Order.
argued that, defendant no. 1 had made allegations of fraud against the
advocate for plaintiffs in M.A. No. 66 of 2017. He also made certain
allegations in the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion No. 1129 of
2019 not only against the advocate for the plaintiffs, but also against
the then Presiding Judge, who decided M.A. No. 66 of 2017 by order
dtd. 21-02-2019. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs referred the reply filed
to present notice of motion by the defendants and also argued that,
defendant made several allegations of fraud against the plaintiff and his
advocate. Defendant had scandalized the then Presiding Judge and
pressurized the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs by taking out M.A. No. 66
of 2017. He had also made several allegations against the Presiding
Judge in Transfer Application dtd. 07-02-2018 filed before the Hon’ble
Principal Judge. The said allegations are scandalizing the then Presiding
Judge. Hence, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs prayed to allow the notice
of motion and initiate action of criminal contempt against the
defendant.
5. In written argument, defendant no. 1 submitted that false
submissions are made by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs in the
affidavits in notice of motion. Plaintiffs and his advocate created hurdle
and obstructions and they misused and abused the process of law in
spite of co-operating to conduct the proceeding by remaining absent on
the fixed dates. The present notice of motion is taken out by the
plaintiffs to unnecessarily embarrass, humiliate and demoralized the
defendants. Hence, defendants prayed to dismiss the present notice of
motion.
-- 3 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 4 Order.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is necessary to see the
definition of “criminal contempt” provided in section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act. The definition reads as below :
“ Definition:-(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower
the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”
7. In the instant case, clause (i) of above definition is relevant.
It has to see that, the allegations made by defendant in the written
application, reply and affidavit of notice of motion had scandalized or
lowered down authority of court. It appears that, defendants had taken
out the M.A. No. 66 of 2017 under section 340 of Cr.P.C. The said
application is decided and disposed off by order dtd. 21-02-2019. The
then Preceding Judge had not rejected the application, but issue of
forgery alleged by defendants was kept open to be decided at the end of
trial. As per plaintiffs, defendants had filed notice of motion for recall of
order dtd. 21-02-2019 and in the affidavit in support of said notice of
motion, made certain allegations against the Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiffs and the then Presiding Judge. After going through the said
-- 4 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 5 Order.
affidavit and application i.e M.A. No. 66 of 2017, though there appears
certain allegations of fraud against the advocate for the plaintiffs and
his advocate, but making such allegations against the opposite party
and its advocate would not scandalise or tends to scandalise the
authority of the court. It would not fall within the definition of
“criminal contempt”.
8. Even though there are certain allegations against the then
Presiding Judge, but in para -6 of the said order dtd. 08-08-2019 in
Notice of Motion No. 1129 of 2019, the then Preceding Judge had dealt-
with the said allegations and did not find such allegations as
scandalizing or lowering down the authority of the court. It is observed
in said order that, by filing the M.A. No. 66 of 2017 and Notice of
Motion No. 1129 of 2019 defendants had lapsed the time of three years
during which the suit could have not been disposed off.
9. In para no. 4 of the affidavit in support of present notice of
motion, plaintiffs contended that, defendant had scandalized the
presiding Judge by taking out M.A. No. 66 of 2017 and threatened to
take criminal action for contempt and other offences against the
plaintiffs and his advocate before the Bar Counsel of Maharashtra and
Goa. It may be noted here that, M.A. No. 66 of 2017 has been disposed
off by order dtd. 21-02-2019 keeping open issue of forgery of
documents, to be decided during trial. It is important to note that, the
then Presiding Judge had not observed in the order that, allegations
made in M.A. No. 66 of 2017 are scandalizing or lowering down the
authority of the court. Had it been such case, the Presiding Judge
-- 5 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 6 Order.
deciding M.A. No. 66 of 2017 or another Presiding Judge deciding
Notice of Motion No. 1129 of 2019, would have issued notice for
criminal contempt against the defendant. Even after going through the
M.A. No. 66 of 2017 and affidavit in Notice of Motion No. 1129 of 2019
filed by defendants, the then Preceding Judges would not felt that the
allegations in the said proceedings were scandalising or lowering down
the authority of the court. In my view, such allegations are hallow and
vague in nature and not scandalizing or lowering down the authority of
the court.
10. It is also argued that, in transfer application dtd. 07-02-
2018, defendants had made allegation against the then Presiding Judge.
Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs submitted that, the transfer application
was rejected by the Hon’ble Principal Judge. Had the said allegation
been scandalizing or lowering down authority of the court, while
rejecting the transfer application, the Hon’ble Principal Judge would
have issued notice to the defendant for initiating action of criminal
contempt. Not taking such action while rejecting the application, itself
shows that allegations in the transfer application would not scandalise
or lowered down the authority of the court. Thus, after going through
the entire record, I am of the view that the allegations levelled by the
defendants in various proceedings i.e M.A. No. 66 of 2017, affidavit in
support of Notice of Motion No. 1129 of 2019 and transfer application
would not scandalized or lowered down the authority of the court and
the same were not covered by definition of criminal contempt.
11. I have gone through the rulings relied by Ld. Advocate for
-- 6 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 7 Order.
the plaintiffs as follows:
a. Arun Kumar Krishnarao Balpande V/s. Wasudeorao Kondbaji
Ganar and others, in Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1994 decided on
13-10-1995(Nagpur).
b. Het Ram Beniwal and others V/s. Raghuveer Singh and others,
AIR 2016 SC 4940;
c. Satish Mahadeorao Uke V/s. Registrar, High Court of Bombay
Bench at Nagpur, 2016(4) Mh.L.J.
12. In the peculiar facts of the present case, said rulings are
not helpful for initiating action of criminal contempt against the
defendant. Hence, in my view notice of motion is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I pass following order :
- ORDER
Contempt Notice of Motion No.527 of 2019 is dismissed and
accordingly, disposed off.
(N.G. Shukla)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Date :22-11-2023 Gr. Bombay.
1. Dictated on : 22-11-2023
2. Transcribed on : 22-11-2023
3. Checked and Signed on : 24-11-2023
-- 7 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 8 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
-- 8 of 9 --
Contempt N.M. No. 527/2019 in
Summary Suit No. 5383/2012. 9 Order.
24-11-2023 5.00 p.m. Miss K.M.Rana .
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri N.G. Shukla
(Court Room No.63).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 22-11-2023
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 24-11-2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 24-11-2023
-- 9 of 9 --