Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 945 (HP)

Indo Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd. v. R. K. Saini

2016-05-27

RAJIV SHARMA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Vide order dated 10.12.2015 this Court had held the respondents to be guilty of contempt and had directed them to purge the contempt by paying the decretal amount alongwith uptodate interest to the petitioner within a period of four weeks and in failure to do so, the respondents were directed to show cause as to why the rule be not made absolute and they be punished for the contempt of Court. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “It is manifest from the records that the respondents had compromised the matter and given an undertaking to pay the amount within a stipulated time. It is more than settled that the undertaking is given to the Court and not to the opposite side and its breach has the same effect as the breach of injunction. The respondents by not adhering to the undertaking have deceived the Court. The respondents are, therefore, held guilty of contempt of Court and are directed to purge the contempt by paying the decretal amount alongwith uptodate interest to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. In case of their failure to do so, the respondents shall remain present before this Court on 08.01.2016 to show cause as to why rule be not made absolute and they be punished for the contempt of Court.” 2. To recapitulate, the undisputed facts are that the parties to the lis settled their dispute before the Mediator and thereafter moved joint application being OMP No. 228 of 2013 for passing a decree in terms of the compromise. On 11.6.2013, this application was taken on record and after recording statement of the respective parties-their representatives, a consent decree came to be passed, the operative portion whereof reads as follows: “4. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of compromise Ext.C-1, including the clause with regard to deferment of further proceedings in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the plaintiff-company against defendants No. 1 to 3 and pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh (U.T.) by one year from today, that is, 11.6.2013 till 10.6.2014, failing which consequences as per law shall ensue and the decree shall be enforceable through intervention of this Court. 5. The parties shall be entitled for refund of Court fee as per rules.” 3. 5. The parties shall be entitled for refund of Court fee as per rules.” 3. The respondents admittedly did not adhere to the terms of the undertaking which led to the passing of the order dated 10.12.2015 (supra). 4. An application being CMP No. 376 of 2016 has now been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 for placing on record subsequent events with further prayer to discharge and drop the contempt proceedings. It is averred that the respondent No.2 on 18.12.2015 had informed the respondent No.1 as also the other members of the Society to attend the special meeting of the Management Committee on 22.12.2015. In this meeting, the Committee had decided that this Court be requested to grant one year time to pay the amount as undertaken in the compromise decree and on such submissions, it has been prayed that the documents of the meetings be taken on record and the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 be dropped. 5. The non-applicant/petitioner has filed reply, reiterating therein that the undertaking given by respondents has till date not been honoured by them. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 1999) defines “contempt” as “Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court or legislature.” It also adds that “Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable.” 7. Salmon L.J. in Jennison vs. Baker (1972) 1 All. E.R. 997, observed: “The inherent power of the judges of the High Court to commit for contempt of court has existed from time immemorial. The power exists to ensure justice shall be done. And solely to this end, it prohibits acts and words tending to obstruct the administration of justice. The public at large no less than the individual litigant have an interest and a very real interest in justice being effectively administered”. 8. Every judicial officer must ensure the majesty and sacrosanctity and dignity of the institution should not be allowed to be crucified. The purpose of public law is to protect the Constitutional mechanism. The public at large no less than the individual litigant have an interest and a very real interest in justice being effectively administered”. 8. Every judicial officer must ensure the majesty and sacrosanctity and dignity of the institution should not be allowed to be crucified. The purpose of public law is to protect the Constitutional mechanism. The law should be implemented in dynamic manner, which may not cause a sense of insecurity or helplessness in the mind of a single individual, as Pithily stated by Frank Futer, J in Jennison case (supra): “The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope”. 9. In the celebrated decision of Attorney General vs. Times Newspaper Ltd., 1974 AC 273, Lord Diplock stated: (AC p.308 A) “…..There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity….” While Lord Morris, summarized the purpose of contempt jurisdiction as follows: “In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 held that it was necessary for the Courts to exercise its contempt jurisdiction in order to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. It was held as under: “8. It was held as under: “8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that truth alone triumphs is an achievable aim there; or it is virtue which ends in victory is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of Courts.” 11. It is more than settled that the power of Courts to punish for contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judicial process. Thus, it is a necessary incident to every court of justice. 12. Likewise, there cannot be any dispute that the Rule of law has to be maintained whatever be the consequences. This was so observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCC 599 wherein it was held as under: “10. The rule of law has to be maintained whatever be the consequences. The ‘welfare of people’ is the supreme law and this enunciates adequately the ideal of ‘law’. This could only be achieved when justice is administered lawfully, judiciously, without any fear and without being hampered or throttled by unscrupulous elements. The administration of justice is dependent upon obedience or execution of the orders of the Court. The contemptuous act which interfered with administration of justice on one hand and impinge upon the dignity of institution of justice on the other, bringing down its respect in the eye of the commoner, are acts which may not fall in the category of cases where the Court can accept the apology of the contemnor even if it is tendered at the threshold of the proceedings.” 13. In this background, the next question that arises for consideration is as to how a contemnor can purge himself for contempt. In Pravin C. Shah vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali and another (2001) 8 SCC 650 , one of the question which came up for consideration was as to how a contemnor can purge himself for the contempt, although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with a criminal contempt. In Pravin C. Shah vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali and another (2001) 8 SCC 650 , one of the question which came up for consideration was as to how a contemnor can purge himself for the contempt, although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with a criminal contempt. However, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “23. Now we have to consider the crucial question - How can a contemnor purge himself of the contempt? According to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, purging oneself of contempt can be done by apologising to the court. The said opinion of the Bar Council of India can be seen from the following portion of the impugned order: “Purging oneself of contempt can be only by regretting or apologising in the case of a completed action of criminal contempt. If it is a case of civil contempt, by subsequent compliance with the orders or directions the contempt can be purged off. There is no procedural provision in law to get purged of contempt by an order of an appropriate court. 24. Purging is a process by which an undesirable element is expelled either from ones own self or from a society. It is a cleansing process. Purge is a word which acquired implications first in theological connotations. In the case of a sin, purging of such sin is made through the expression of sincere remorse coupled with doing the penance required. In the case of a guilt, purging means to get himself cleared of the guilt. The concept of purgatory was evolved from the word purge, which is a state of suffering after this life in which those souls, who depart this life with their deadly sins, are purified and render fit to enter into heaven where nothing defiled enters. (vide Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol.35A, page 307). In Blacks Law Dictionary the word purge is given the following meaning: To cleanse; to clear or exonerate from some charge or imputation of guilt, or from a contempt. It is preposterous to suggest that if the convicted person undergoes punishment or if he tenders the fine amount imposed on him the purge would be completed. 25. In Blacks Law Dictionary the word purge is given the following meaning: To cleanse; to clear or exonerate from some charge or imputation of guilt, or from a contempt. It is preposterous to suggest that if the convicted person undergoes punishment or if he tenders the fine amount imposed on him the purge would be completed. 25. We are told that a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has expressed a view that purging process would be completed when the contemnor undergoes the penalty (vide Dr. Madan Gopal Gupta vs. The Agra University and ors., AIR 1974 Allahabad 39). This is what the learned single Judge said about it: “In my opinion a party in contempt purged its contempt by obeying the orders of the court or by undergoing the penalty imposed by the court.” 26. Obeying the orders of the court would be a mode by which one can make the purging process in a substantial manner when it is a civil contempt. Even for such a civil contempt the purging process would not be treated as completed merely by the contemnor undergoing the penalty imposed on him unless he has obeyed the order of the court or he has undone the wrong. If that is the position in regard to civil contempt the position regarding criminal contempt must be stronger. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act categorises contempt of court into two categories. The first category is civil contempt which is the willful disobedience of the order of the court including breach of an undertaking given to the court. But criminal contempt includes doing any act whatsoever which tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of any court, or tends to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding or interferes with, or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. 27. We cannot therefore approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. 27. We cannot therefore approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned single Judge in the afore-cited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt.” 14. It is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty of law even though the same may call for extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by this Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, we see no reason why we should hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 15. The respondents have failed to purge themselves by subsequently complying with the undertaking given to this Court and, therefore, we are left with no option but to punish the contemnors by exercising powers under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The respondents/contemnors are guilty of having violated not only the terms of the compromise dated 11.6.2013 but also found to have violated the order dated 10.12.2015 and are therefore sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each. In case of default in the payment of fine, the respondents/contemnors shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Registry is directed to prepare the jail warrants. With the aforesaid observations, the application as well as contempt petition stand disposed of.