Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 128 (DEL)

Court On Its Own Motion v. Deepak Khosla

2021-01-18

NAJMI WAZIRI, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

body2021
JUDGMENT Najmi Waziri, J. - This case concerns the conduct of the respondent on 28.01.2009 during court proceedings in Co.A(SB)6/2008 and Co.A.(SB)7/2008, titled as "Sonia Khosla &Anr. v. Vikram Bakshi & Ors." and Mr. R.P. Khosla v. M/s Montreaux Resort (P) Limited & Ors." respectively. The learned Single Judge found the respondent's conduct as constituting criminal contempt of court. The case was referred to a Division Bench. The order of 28.1.2009 reads as under: "1. CA No. 1000,1290 & 1446/2008 in Co. A (SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 1001/2008 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 filed by the appellants are under hearing by this court. Appellant has already been heard on these applications and learned counsel for the respondents was being heard when the matter was adjourned to today to make the submissions in reply. 2. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the appeal filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board and had opened submissions that the appellant cannot be permitted to set up case not pleaded in the petition before the Company Law Board. It was also their contention that the appellant cannot modify or vary the petition filed on 13th August, 2007 by way of filing an additional affidavit about six months thereafter on 30th January, 2008. Reliance was placed on the memorandum of understanding between some of the parties which was the basis of the petition before the Company Law Board. 3. The applications before this Court are in the nature of a review of hearings wherefrom a brother colleague has recused himself for reasons of scandalous averments contained in CA No. 1000/2008. It is well settled that consideration of any application has to abide by judicial record which is placed before the court. Fully conscious of the well settled legal position, unfounded allegations before even submissions could be completed by counsel have been made. 4. The matter was adjourned at request of counsel for the respondents to today. During the Intervening period CA No. 133/2009 in Co.A(SB) No. 7/2008 and CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 have been filed on behalf of the applicant. 5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, the applicant insisted on arguing CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 27/2009 & 31/3009 in Co. During the Intervening period CA No. 133/2009 in Co.A(SB) No. 7/2008 and CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 have been filed on behalf of the applicant. 5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, the applicant insisted on arguing CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 27/2009 & 31/3009 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 objecting to the appearance of learned counsel on the other side on the ground that they have no right to appear. 6. Counsels for the respondents were heard and have drawn my attention to the memo of parties filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board wherein this company was arrayed as the respondent no. 1 and was represented by counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 before this court. Counsels relied on paras 3 to 9 of order dated 31st January, 2008 passed by the Company Law Board at page 60 of Co.A(SB) No. 6/2008. In this background, inasmuch as counsels had appeared for the respondents before the Company Law Board and the present petition in appeal being continuation thereof, I saw no reason as to why they cannot continue to complete the arguments in the part-heard matter. It was pointed out that no such objection was ever raised even though the same counsel have been appearing in the matter right from the first date when the respondents first put in appearance. Caveat is also stated to have been filed. 7. In this background, Mr. Vibhu Bhakru, Advocate who has been addressing arguments was asked to resume arguments on the part-heard application. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Khosla rose and started gesticulating. He interrupted the court proceedings in a loud voice making allegations that the counsels appearing in the matter have no right of audience in the matter and that proceedings in this court are not as per law. All requests to him to contain himself, to resume his seat and permit respondents' counsel to complete his submission did not bear any fruit. Mr. Khosla continued to interrupt the court proceedings in loud and obstructive tone and making allegations against the counsel appearing on the other side in open court that they are lying. 8. He used insulting language and has cast aspersions on counsel appearing on the other side. Mr. Khosla continued to interrupt the court proceedings in loud and obstructive tone and making allegations against the counsel appearing on the other side in open court that they are lying. 8. He used insulting language and has cast aspersions on counsel appearing on the other side. The allegations made are scandalous and aimed at creating prejudice and embarrassment to counsel who are discharging their professional duties towards their client. I have been exercising considerable restraint keeping in view that Mr. Deepak Khosla was appearing in person. The respondents have objected to his appearance inasmuch as he is arrayed as respondent no. 11 before the Company Law Board in the petition which has been filed by his wife Ms. Sonia Khosla as the petitioner and Mr. Khosla is the opposite party before the Company Law Board. 9. His conduct in court today was so obstructive that this court found it impossible to record the order in open court and has risen to dictate this order in chambers. 10. The acts of Mr. Deepak Khosla in standing up when the other side is arguing gesticulating with his hands, raising his voice and not permitting the proceedings in the court to continue amounts to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings before this court, which prima facie, constitutes criminal contempt of court. 11. Paras 1 to 9 of this order be treated as the facts constituting the graveman of the charge as per para 10 above. 12. Let a copy of order be given to Mr. Deepak Khosla under signatures of the Court Master. Mr. Deepak Khosla is hereby called upon to submit his response to this order, which is being treated as a notice of charge, to be responded within two weeks. 13. The contempt matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings. Registry shall appropriately register the matter and place copies of all the orders and applications noticed above before the Division Bench. Dasti." 2. 13. The contempt matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings. Registry shall appropriately register the matter and place copies of all the orders and applications noticed above before the Division Bench. Dasti." 2. 'Criminal contempt' is defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), as under: "(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; ..." 3. On 06.02.2009 notice under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was issued: the order of 28.01.2009 was i) treated as a statement containing the facts, and ii) it became notice to the contemnor of the charge of having committed contempt of court. The respondent was required to submit his response thereto by way of affidavit. However, the respondent never did so, despite the case having been listed for 75 times, over a span of more than a decade. 4. On 06.02.2009, the respondent had stated that he had tendered an unconditional apology before the learned Single Judge and was awaiting orders to be passed thereon. Instead of a reply to the charge of contempt, the respondent moved sundry applications and submissions about the manner in which the contempt proceedings ought to be conducted. The order dated 06.02.2009 reads as under: "1. The contemnor is present in person. The contemnor states that copy of the order dated 28th January, 2009 has been received by him. 2. The order dated 28.1.2009 is treated as a statement containing the facts as also the notice to the contemnor as the charge of having committed contempt of court; requiring the contemnor to submit his response thereto by means of an affidavit. 3. Needful be done within four weeks. 4. 2. The order dated 28.1.2009 is treated as a statement containing the facts as also the notice to the contemnor as the charge of having committed contempt of court; requiring the contemnor to submit his response thereto by means of an affidavit. 3. Needful be done within four weeks. 4. The contemnor states that he has filed an affidavit tendering un unqualified apology to Gita Mittal, J. and requests that it may be clarified that the cognizance of the alleged contempt committed by the contemnor by the Division Bench would not preclude Gita Mittal, J. from accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor and passing appropriate orders thereon. 5. We clarify that it would be open to the contemnor to take such steps to purge himself before Gita Mittal, J. 6. List on 13th April, 2009." 5. This petition was listed about 75 times, in a period spanning over a decade. The respondent has filed no reply to the charge. The statements of facts are lucid and the charge of his having committed the contempt of court is clearly proven. The charge against the respondent speaks for itself i.e. he not only used insulting language and cast aspersions on counsel appearing on the other side but made allegations that were scandalous,for creating prejudice and embarrassment to counsel who weresimply discharging their professional duties towards their clients and their duty as officers of the court. During the court proceedings, the respondent spoke in a loud voice, and every now and then rose from his seat and started gesticulating, which was unbecoming of a counsel in a court of law. He also stated that the counsel of the other side were lying. This accusation would be a matter of concern and objectionable to any counsel. The conduct of the respondent in standing up,gesticulating when other side was arguing, raising of his voice and not permitting the court proceedings to continue, was clear obstruction and interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. The incident has been recorded by the learned Single Judge.The court is of the view that this conduct constitutes criminal contempt of court. 6. However, on the date of the said incident, the petitioner had drawn up an affidavit of apology and he had expressed his heart-felt, unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for what transpired in the Court. The incident has been recorded by the learned Single Judge.The court is of the view that this conduct constitutes criminal contempt of court. 6. However, on the date of the said incident, the petitioner had drawn up an affidavit of apology and he had expressed his heart-felt, unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for what transpired in the Court. In the affidavit he had also averred that he had orally expressed his apology before the Court in the post-lunch session when the Court re-convened at around 3.40 p.m. This apology was tendered in Company Application no. 189/2009 dated 28.01.2009, which averred as under: ".....2. That at the outset, the applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to formally submit his unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for any offence, or even the mildest of inconvenience, he may have caused this Hon'ble Court in the forenoon session of the hearing today. All statements made by him during the course of oral arguments during the forenoon session were relating to very fundamental points of procedure prescribed in law, and were only intended bona fide to assist this Hon'ble Court in appreciating the extent of the gross abuse of process of law being repeatedly indulged in by the other party, and were not intended by the applicant to obstruct proceedings in any way, rather, were intended to assist in the proceedings go forward lawfully. However, if, on account of any overly- impassioned plea put forward by him to this effect, if he had indulged in more emphasis on this aspect that what was considered suitable or appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, he humbly and most respectfully places by means of the present application the formal tendering of the heart-felt and unqualified, unconditional and unreserved apology for his conduct, and which apology he had orally submitted before this Hon'ble Court today when it reconvened for the post-lunch session at around 3:40 p.m. 3. That as a matter of fact, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to start hearing the matter today at around 12:20 p.m., and then rise at around 12:40 p.m., and reconvened at around 3:40 p.m., and immediately upon its doing so, the applicant, with the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court to address it, orally tendered his unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for the events that transpired between 12:20 p.m. and 12:40 p.m. even before the order sought to be recalled by means of the present application and announced....." 7. The respondent further avers in his affidavit that the he has highest respect for the judiciary. In effect, he stated that he promptly realized his error, that his overly-impassioned conduct was unbecoming. He has otherwise stated that he was not fully familiar with court proceedings and the courtesies which are due towards all parties and counsel appearing before a Court. When the said application was placed before the learned Single Judge on 19.07.2011, the Court noted as under: "41. Before parting with this order, I am compelled to note that despite his extreme conduct noticed above, so far as the hearing on the present application is concerned, the applicant displayed circumspection and, more important, control in his submissions on the present application before this court. This fact may be considered by the Division Bench while considering appropriate orders on the present application. 42. In view of the above, it is directed that: - (i) the Registry shall place the present application before the Division Bench considering the matter pursuant to the order dated 28th of January, 2009 when the same is next listed." 8. What emanates from the preceding discussion is that the respondent got carried away during the proceedings because it concerned the interests of his family members. He faltered at that critical juncture where personal interest and duty of a counsel to the court, should part ways. He realized that he had slipped in his professional conduct. He promptly expressed his heartfelt, unreserved, unqualified apology, to the learned Single Judge when the Court reconvened at 3.40 p.m. the same afternoon. He expressed his regret at not having exercised due caution. He has tendered his unqualified and unreserved apology before this Court as well. He emphasizes that a lawyer is an officer of the Court first, and the role should always be discharged with due responsibility. 9. He expressed his regret at not having exercised due caution. He has tendered his unqualified and unreserved apology before this Court as well. He emphasizes that a lawyer is an officer of the Court first, and the role should always be discharged with due responsibility. 9. The court is of the view that the respondent's apology was prompt, unreserved and unqualified. His contrition is evident. Interests of justice will be served by accepting the apology. It is accepted so. The petition is disposed-off in the above terms.