D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) ADHERING to the well established and known practice of the Court, on Tuesday the 25/10/1994 unlisted miscellaneous applications were taken up at 12 Oclock and disposed of by 12. 25 p. m. Some applications were rejected as there was no counsel or party present to press them. In two such applications Shri Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate was the counsel for the applicant. ( 2 ) SOON after the Court resumed consideration of left over fresh petitions in seriatim, Shri Mishra appeared in Court and, without seeking usual permission and in a very agitated manner, started making complaints about rejection of his applications. ( 3 ) HE was asked not to disturb the judicial proceedings that were going on and was advised that, conventionally, time for mentioning matter in Court was after lunch at 1. 45 p. m. On this Shri Mishra exhibited great rage and virtually started shouting and insisted that the order rejecting his applications be recalled at once otherwise, he warned : ( 4 ) HE was told that Court would not pass any order desired by him under threat or coercion, and it would pass only such orders as were just and proper. He was requested to allow the judicial proceedings relating to other petitions to go on. This, in fact, led to another out burst by Shri Mishra. He exclaimed :he pointed to the desk in front of him and shouted : ( 5 ) SHRI Mishra had completely lost his balance at that time. He wilfully and deliberately behaved contemptuously and obstructed the Court from transacting its judicial business. Indeed, such a situation was created that Court was compelled to rise without being able to transact any other judicial business that day. ( 6 ) THE manner in which Shri Mishra had conducted himself clearly warranted action for contempt of Court but exercising judicial restraint in the hope that better sense might prevail and keeping in view the larger interest of the administration of justice no proceedings for contempt were drawn against him. ( 7 ) UNFORTUNATELY, such hopes of better behaviour being exhibited by Shri Mishra were belied when the next morning i. e. on Wednesday the 26/10/1994. ( 7 ) UNFORTUNATELY, such hopes of better behaviour being exhibited by Shri Mishra were belied when the next morning i. e. on Wednesday the 26/10/1994. Shri Mishra appeared in Court at 10 a. m. and, without seeking permission and stealing a march over the other advocates standing to make mention, demanded, again with a very contemptuous gesture, adjournment of proceedings in Misc. Writ Petition No. 10650 of 1992, A. K. Singh v. State, listed at serial No. 3 in the Cause list of Court No. 5, on the ground that he would be appearing in the case for the petitioner. In the Cause list the name of another counsel, namely, Shri S. S. Tripathi was shown as counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) ON this it was suggested to Shri Mishra that he should file his Vakalatnama. The suggestion infuriated Shri Mishra sending him into unbridled frenzy. He shouted :-He went on saying He did not stop there and further said :he then warned : ( 9 ) SHRI Mishra wilfully and deliberately held up judicial proceedings of the Court for about half an hour i. e. between 10 a. m. and 10. 35 a. m. ( 10 ) THE manner in which Shri Mishra acted constitutes blatant contempt of Court which cannot be allowed to go without taking appropriate action. ( 11 ) THERE can be no escape from the conclusion, in the context of the facts narrated, that the conduct of Shri Mishra renders him guilty of contempt of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. This beingexfaciecontempt committed by Shri Mishra, he is hereby convicted for contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and sentenced to simple imprisonment of ten days and a fine of Rs. 2000. 00, in default of payment of which he shall undergo 10 days simple imprisonment. ( 12 ) LET a copy of this order be served upon Shri Mishra forthwith. Further, a copy of the order be sent to the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council at Allahabad and the Bar Council of India for appropriate action at their end. ( 13 ) ORDER announced. The contemner, who is present, is directed to be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. He enquires about the time fixed for depositing fine. He has been told that no time has been fixed. ( 13 ) ORDER announced. The contemner, who is present, is directed to be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. He enquires about the time fixed for depositing fine. He has been told that no time has been fixed. Order accordingly. .