Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2116 (KAR)

R. Srinivas v. B. Sambashiva Reddy

2019-10-25

H.P.SANDESH, RAVI MALIMATH

body2019
ORDER : 1. This complaint is filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the accused praying to punish the accused under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Brief facts of the case: 2. The complainant in the complaint contended that the factory premises bearing No.C-212 consisting of six portions situated at 4th Cross, 1st Stage Peenya Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bengaluru, originally belonged to the accused. The accused had availed loan from State Bank of India. As he did not repay the loan amount, a suit was filed in O.S.No. 10962 of 1994. The same was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and was re-numbered as O.A.No.861 of 1995. The accused contested the matter and the same was decreed in favour of the Bank. Thereafter, recovery proceedings was initiated against the accused and the property was brought for sale. The complainant has purchased the same in the public auction and sale certificate was issued and the sale was also confirmed. Thereafter, the complainant has filed H.R.C.No.51 of 2009 against one of the tenant, M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises and the same was allowed. The tenant filed HRRP No.210 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. The tenant did not vacate the premises and hence Execution Case No.936 of 2012 was filed before the Court of Small Causes. The complainant also filed five civil suits against other tenants. In the said suits, the accused filed impleading applications and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred writ petitions and those writ petitions were allowed and the order of impleadment was set aside. The accused also filed objectors application in the Execution Case No.936 of 2012 and the same was dismissed. He filed R.F.A.No.115 of 2014 before the High Court against the order dated 6.1.2014 passed in Execution Case No.936 of 2012dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Court passed an order that the same is subject to the result of O.S.No.2073 of 2012 filed by the accused since he had challenged the eviction order and also the order passed in HRRP No.210 of 2010. 3. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Court passed an order that the same is subject to the result of O.S.No.2073 of 2012 filed by the accused since he had challenged the eviction order and also the order passed in HRRP No.210 of 2010. 3. The main contention of the complainant is that the accused has suffered the decree in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same was challenged before the High Court and the High Court also confirmed the same. In spite he suffering the orders on the judicial side, he is coming in the way of the complainant taking the possession of the premises and taking recourse to legal proceedings to scuttle the process of law. The same amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the very acts of the accused amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and hence he may be punished for the same. 4. In pursuance of this complaint, a notice was issued to the accused. He has filed a counter to the contempt petition contending that the complaint is not maintainable. He denied the allegations made in the complaint. He contended that in order to protect his rights, he initiated the proceedings and not with an intention to scuttle the rights of the complainant. The accused in order to protect the possession and his rights, initiated the said proceedings. It is also his contention that the complainant did not take possession from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, instead he has approached the Civil Court to take the possession and the same is not permitted under law. He also contended that though the complainant has purchased the property in question in auction and even though there was sale confirmation certificate issued in favour of the complainant, he has not produced any material to show that he has taken the possession of the said property. The complainant ought to have made proper application before the Recovery Officer in order to obtain the possession of the said property. Unless and until, he has placed the material to show that there was delivery of possession of the said property, he cannot maintain the complaint. The accused never intended to abuse the process of law. 5. The complainant ought to have made proper application before the Recovery Officer in order to obtain the possession of the said property. Unless and until, he has placed the material to show that there was delivery of possession of the said property, he cannot maintain the complaint. The accused never intended to abuse the process of law. 5. This Court considering the contents of the complaint and also the counter filed by the accused, found prima facie material to frame the charges against the accused and hence charges have been framed against the accused and his plea was recorded. The accused did not plead guilty, instead he contested the matter. The complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P35. The accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. 6. After the closure of the evidence, we have heard the arguments of the complainant's counsel and also accused counsel. 7. The counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently contended that the accused is an advocate. Knowing fully well the procedure, he abused the process of Court. The accused failed in his right on judicial side challenging the decree passed against him. This Court also affirmed the order passed against him and thereafter also the accused made all his efforts to scuttle the legal proceedings of the complainant. The documents which have been produced at exhibit P' series evidence the fact of the very conduct of the accused that the accused is wrongfully coming in the way of the complainant taking the possession of the premises. The very conduct of the accused amounts to the criminal contempt since the accused is interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings and interfering and obstructing the administration of justice and hence he is liable to be punished. 8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the accused contested the matter and in order to protect his possession and his right, initiated the proceedings and not with an intention to scuttle the proceedings. The same does not amount to contempt of Court. Hence, he prayed to drop the proceedings. 9. 8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the accused contested the matter and in order to protect his possession and his right, initiated the proceedings and not with an intention to scuttle the proceedings. The same does not amount to contempt of Court. Hence, he prayed to drop the proceedings. 9. Having heard the arguments of the counsel appearing for the complaint and the counsel appearing for the accused and having considered both the oral and documentary evidence, the points that arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the accused has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act and thereby committed an offence under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? 2. What order? Point 1: 10. Before considering the contentions of both the counsel, this Court has to analyze both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court. 11. We would like to summarize the contents of the complaint. The very contents of the complaint is that the complainant has purchased the property in question in public auction after the accused has suffered a decree in O.A.No.861 of 1995. The sale in favour of the complainant was also confirmed by issuing sale certificate dated 19.11.2004. Thereafter, the complainant filed HRC No.51 of 2009 and the same was allowed against one of the tenant and in the HRRP also the order was confirmed granting 18 months time to the tenant. The tenant failed to vacate the premises and hence he initiated Execution Case No.936 of 2012. In the said execution petition, the accused had filed objectors application under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 of CPC. The said application was also dismissed. The accused filed RFA and the same was also dismissed. The complainant similarly filed five ejectment suits and in that suits, the accused made an attempt to come on record by filing an application and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the said orders were questioned in the writ proceedings and the writ petitions were allowed and the orders were quashed. The suits filed by the complainant were also allowed. Hence, execution petitions were also filed and in that execution petitions also objectors application was filed and the complainant also filed a suit in O.S.No.2073 of 2012. Thereafter, the said orders were questioned in the writ proceedings and the writ petitions were allowed and the orders were quashed. The suits filed by the complainant were also allowed. Hence, execution petitions were also filed and in that execution petitions also objectors application was filed and the complainant also filed a suit in O.S.No.2073 of 2012. The very contention of the complainant is that the accused is coming in the way of taking the possession interfering with due course of judicial proceedings and interfering and obstructing the administration of justice. 12. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 by filing an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P35. PW1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the complaint was filed after one year from the date of the last alleged incident of contempt. The witness was also confronted with Ex.D1 that is the order of confirmation of the sale and the same was admitted. It was suggested that proper person to get delivery of the property is the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal and not the Civil Court, in case where the property were auctioned by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the said suggestion was denied. It is elicited that without approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal he initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants before the concerned Civil Court. It is also elicited that the tenants have taken the defence in the eviction proceedings that the complainant is not the owner of the property. 13. The accused has examined himself as DW1. In his evidence, he admits that he is a practicing advocate and before starting his practice, he was doing business as partner in M/s. Karnataka Enamel Industries. The said business is not in existence. He says that the Bank has filed a suit against him as a proprietor of M/s. Karnataka Enamel Industries for recovery of amount. The said suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal and he filed objections and admitted the Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in his chief evidence. He also got marked Ex.D2, an application filed by him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He admits that the property is purchased by the complainant and also issuance of the sale certificate. The said suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal and he filed objections and admitted the Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in his chief evidence. He also got marked Ex.D2, an application filed by him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He admits that the property is purchased by the complainant and also issuance of the sale certificate. But he contends that auction purchaser, i.e., the complainant, has not taken any steps to take possession of the property from him within one year from the date of confirmation of the sale before the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, he filed suits against the tenants before the Civil Court. He also says that he filed an impleading application in the original suit. He also admits HRC proceedings and HRRP proceedings and also filing of an application in execution proceedings as obstruct or and filing of RFA No.115 of 2014. It is his evidence that proper course open to the complainant to take possession of the property is to approach the Recovery Officer attached to Debts Recovery Tribunal under Rules 39 and 40 of Income Tax (Certificate Proceeding) Rules. To show that the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, he has produced a copy of the application filed by another auction purchaser and got marked Ex.D6. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he was one of the partner of the M/s. Karnataka Enamel Industries. He also admits of availing of loan from the Bank. Further, he admits of the Bank issuing several notices to him and he did not repay the amount. Hence, suit was filed and he contested the same. He further admits that despite the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, he did not repay the amount. He also submits that he has filed review application and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter he filed Debts Recovery Tribunal appeal and the same was also dismissed. The writ petition was also filed and the same was dismissed. Hence, property was brought for sale and the complainant has purchased the same, since he was the highest bidder. He also admits that he is not paying any tax in respect of the property. He admits that there were six tenants as on the date of auction sale. He denies the suggestion that the complainant became the owner in view of the auction purchase. He also admits that he is not paying any tax in respect of the property. He admits that there were six tenants as on the date of auction sale. He denies the suggestion that the complainant became the owner in view of the auction purchase. However, he admits that the auction purchaser has filed eviction suit and the ejectment suit and the suits were decreed. He also admits that he has filed objectors application in Execution Petition Nos.678 of 2014 and 682 of 2014 and also 936 of 2012. He admits that the objectors applications are dismissed and also filed an application under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings of eviction proceedings and the same was also dismissed. He also admits that he filed O.S.No.2073 of 2012 questioning the validity of the order passed in the HRC and HRRP. The witness was confronted with the documents and he admits the documents at Ex.P.22 to Ex.P35. He also admits he filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure and the same is also dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/-. 14. Having considered both the oral and documentary evidence, which have been relied upon by the respective parties, exhibit P' series and exhibit D' series, almost all are certified copies of the Court proceedings taken place before this Court as well as Trial Court in HRC proceedings, execution proceedings, original suits, which were filed for ejection, there is no dispute with regard to the documents. 15. The evidence of PW1, complainant, is that in spite of there being a decree in O.A.No.861 of 1995 and also order passed in the writ petition confirming the decree and also confirmation of sale in favour of the complainant, the accused abused the process of the Court by filing the objectors application in Execution Case No.936 of 2012 and in other execution cases which were arising out of the suits which are decreed in favour of the complainant. The accused also did not dispute the said proceedings and also the filing of impleading applications in the suits filed by the complainant. He also did not dispute the filing of the objectors applications in the respective execution petitions. The accused also did not dispute that the obstruct or application filed by him were also dismissed. The accused also did not dispute the said proceedings and also the filing of impleading applications in the suits filed by the complainant. He also did not dispute the filing of the objectors applications in the respective execution petitions. The accused also did not dispute that the obstruct or application filed by him were also dismissed. The accused also did not dispute the filing of application under Section 10 of CPC to stay the further proceedings of the respective executions, which are marked at exhibit P' series. The said application was also dismissed. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that he did not obtain any orders from the Debts Recovery Tribunal regarding possession from the Recovery Officer. Though it is disputed that the complaint is not within time, in the cross-examination, PW1 has denied the same. The accused counsel himself confronted Ex.D1, the order of confirmation of sale made in favour of the complainant. The very case of the PW1 is that tenants were in possession of the property and hence the complainant has approached the Civil Court for eviction of the tenants. 16. On the other hand, it is the contention of the accused that he filed the cases and applications before the concerned courts in order to protect his rights and possession. It has to be noted that in the cross-examination, DW1 throughout has categorically admitted the proceedings took place before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against him for non-payment of loan amount. He also admits that recovery proceedings were initiated and he has suffered the order and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in the writ proceedings, which he has initiated. The accused also did not dispute the fact that the judicial proceedings with regard to the recovery of the amount from him was concluded. The auction was conducted and the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued. In pursuance of the sale confirmation, the complainant has initiated the proceedings. The only ground that he urged before the Court is that possession ought to have been taken from the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The other contention that in order to protect his possession as well as his interest, he filed all these proceedings. 17. In pursuance of the sale confirmation, the complainant has initiated the proceedings. The only ground that he urged before the Court is that possession ought to have been taken from the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The other contention that in order to protect his possession as well as his interest, he filed all these proceedings. 17. It has to be noted that the accused did not dispute the fact that the recovery proceedings initiated against him was confirmed in the High Court and the order attained finality. When such being the case, in spite of he suffering the order and property was brought for sale and auction was conducted, he did not challenge the confirmation of sale made in favour of the complainant. But he made all his efforts to scuttle the proceedings, which have been filed by the complainant in order to take possession of the property. It is also important to note that the eviction order passed in HRC proceedings was also upheld in the HRRP proceedings. The ejection suits filed by the complainant were also decreed and thereafter execution petitions were filed. In all the execution petitions, the accused filed the objectors applications. Even though he has suffered the order at the hands of this Court with regard to the recovery proceedings against him, he made all his efforts and the same is nothing but abuse of process of Court. knowing fully well that he suffered an order and the same was confirmed in the High Court in the writ proceedings, he did not challenge the confirmation of the same. Instead, he filed number of applications before the Trial Court only with an intention to scuttle the proceedings initiated by the complainant for taking the possession. Hence, we are of the opinion that both oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court clearly shows that the accused abused the process of Court by filing unnecessary applications. 18. This Court based on the materials available on record, framed the charges and the accused contested the matter. He did not choose to apologize for his actions. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the acts of the accused are nothing but the abuse of Court process and also by swearing false affidavits while filing applications after applications before the Court of law. He did not choose to apologize for his actions. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the acts of the accused are nothing but the abuse of Court process and also by swearing false affidavits while filing applications after applications before the Court of law. Despite the failure to get the reliefs in any of the matters, which he initiated and also which he has suffered, the accused continued to abuse the process of law by filing applications for one or the other reason, in order to prevent the complainant to take possession under due process of law. Hence, the same would amount to interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings and causing obstruction to the administration of justice as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The records reveal that the accused made all his efforts to scuttle the Court proceedings. Hence, we are of the opinion that the accused has committed the offence under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 by adopting the method of abuse of Court process. 19. We would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Another vs. Patel Chandrakrant Dhulabhai and Others, (2008) 14 SCC 561 . In paragraph No. 70 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made certain observations with regard to invoking contempt jurisdiction. Paragraph No. 70 of the judgment reads as follows: "70. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for contempt of court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt." 20. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment, this Court has to examine, in order to invoke contempt jurisdiction, it is necessary to see whether the ingredients of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is complied. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment, this Court has to examine, in order to invoke contempt jurisdiction, it is necessary to see whether the ingredients of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is complied. Sub-Clause (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Act states that if any act of a person prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, then the Court can invoke the contempt jurisdiction. 21. In the case on hand, we would like to list out the circumstances under which the accused made all his efforts to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding which tends to obstruct the administration of justice which reads as follows: (i) The accused has suffered an order at the hands of Debts Recovery Tribunal wherein the decree has been passed against him in O.A.No.861 of 1995. (ii) Despite the decree and issuance of recovery certificate, the accused did not repay the loan amount to the Bank. (iii) Aggrieved by the said order, he filed a review application before the very same Court which is numbered as R.A.No.3/2000 and the same came to be dismissed on 05.03.2000. (iv) Thereafter, he has filed an Appeal before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the same came to be dismissed on 05.07.2005. (v) Being aggrieved by the order in appeal, he preferred Writ Petition No.4352 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed on 22.06.2015. (vi) The property was auctioned and sale was confirmed and the accused did not challenge the sale confirmation. The order attained its finality. (vii) Thereafter, the complainant has filed original suits five in number and HRC No.51 of 2009 to take possession of the premises, in which the tenants were in occupation. (viii) The accused filed impleading applications in the suit and the same are allowed. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed Writ Petition and the same is allowed by setting aside the order of impleadment. The said suits are decreed. (ix) The accused thereafter filed objector applications in Execution Petition Nos.678 of 2014 and 682 of 2014 preventing the complainant to take possession of the property and those applications also came to be dismissed by imposing cost. The said suits are decreed. (ix) The accused thereafter filed objector applications in Execution Petition Nos.678 of 2014 and 682 of 2014 preventing the complainant to take possession of the property and those applications also came to be dismissed by imposing cost. (x) The accused also filed memo in the execution petitions stated supra to frame the issues in terms of Ex.P30 and the same was also dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-. (xi) Thereafter, the accused also filed Execution Petition No.936 of 2012 to enforce the decree passed in HRRP and in the said execution petition also filed objector application, the same also came to be dismissed. (xii) The accused also filed O.S.No.2073 of 2012 questioning the validity of the order passed in HRC as well as HRRP. (xiii) The accused also filed an application for injunction restraining the complainant from executing the order passed in HRC as well as HRRP. (xiv) The accused also filed an application under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to stay all further proceedings in Execution Petition No.936 of 2012 in terms of Ex.P22 and similar application was also filed to stay the proceedings in terms of Ex.P21 and both the applications came to be rejected with cost. (xv) The accused also filed one more application under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Petition No.936 of 2012 which was dismissed by imposing cost. (xvi) Even after dismissal of the said applications before the Executing Court, he has filed application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Court seeking for the very same relief and the same is also dismissed. (xvii) The objector application also dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/-. He also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to stay the order. (xviii) Thereafter, against the dismissal of the said applications, the accused has filed a Regular First Appeal before this Court. (xix) The accused also filed an application under order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure to modify the issues in O.S.No.2073/2012. 22. Having taken note of all these circumstances, it is clear that, in spite of the fact that he has suffered a decree before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, he has approached this Court and has suffered an order in the writ petition. 22. Having taken note of all these circumstances, it is clear that, in spite of the fact that he has suffered a decree before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, he has approached this Court and has suffered an order in the writ petition. All his attempts made before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as before this Court regarding the decree in favour of the complainant has failed. The accused in all the petitions which were filed by the complainant to take possession under due process of law has unnecessarily filed the applications and the same are dismissed with cost. In spite of the same, the accused did not stop his abuse of process of law before the Court. Once he did not pay the amount payable to the bank, legal proceedings were initiated against him and he has suffered the decree. Therefore, the very conduct of the accused discloses that he has made all his efforts to scuttle the Court proceedings in taking possession of the premises which the complainant has purchased. In spite of order attaining its finality, made all his efforts to scuttle the Court proceedings to prevent the complainant to take possession under due process of law. Hence, it is a clear case of abuse of process of law as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The very conduct of the accused would amount to contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings in the administration of justice. Hence, it is a fit case to invoke Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punish the accused for abuse of process of law. 23. The records also reveal that in spite of he suffering an order at the hands of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as this Court confirming the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and thereafter confirming the sale in favour of the complainant, the accused being an advocate made all his efforts to scuttle the proceedings initiated by the complainant. Hence, he has to be sentenced taking into consideration the material available on record and hence we pass the following: ORDER: (i) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence, he has to be sentenced taking into consideration the material available on record and hence we pass the following: ORDER: (i) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in the Registry. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.