Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 874 (MP)

Om Prakash Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.

2006-07-18

A.K.GOHIL, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2006
JUDGMENT Gohil, J. -- 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Competent Petition No. 135/ 2000. 2. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has found the appellant guilty of disobedience of the order dated 8.11.2000 passed in WP No. 101/99 and for that punished the appellant with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and sentence of 7 days simple imprisonment. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that notification (Annexure A-4) was issued on 23.11.2000, therefore, apparently there was no notification from the time of lapse of earlier notification, and if any purchase is made by him he cannot be punished in absence of bar created by notification. He has also submitted that now the factory has been closed, therefore, lenient view should be taken in the matter, because he has not intentionally made any disobedience of the order of the Court. 4. In reply, Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that only notification (Annexure A-4) which was issued on 23.11.2000 has been produced before us. This fact is also mentioned in the impugned order dated 8.11.2000. But while hearing the contempt petition, learned counsel for the respondents had not filed any reply and had not brought all the facts before the Court, and before the learned Single Judge no such notification was produced that between 14.11.2000 to 19.11.2000 the bar was not enforced. Therefore, when the reply was not filed of the contempt petition, the learned Single Judge had no option, but to treat the appellant as guilty of disobedience of the order of the Court. We have considered this aspect of the matter that now the factory has been closed and no notification was produced before the learned Single Judge. After lapse of four years period, it would meet the ends of justice if the order of sentence of seven days simple imprisonment is set aside and the order of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is affirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Sentence of 7 days simple imprisonment is set aside and the order of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is affirmed.