Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MAJOR R. S. MURGAI (RETD.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MAJOR P. N. KAUSHIK (RETD.) & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/10/1979
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1980 AIR 107 1980 SCR (1) 936
1980 SCC (1) 10
ACT:
Contempt of Court Act, s. 2(c)-Written submissions
filed by one of the parties pursuant to the directions of
the court after the Judgment was reserved. If private
communication tending to interfere with the due course of
justice.
HEADNOTE:
When one of the parties to a case pursuant to the
directions of the court, makes written submissions after the
Judgment was reserved, such submissions cannot be called
private communication to the Judge. They cannot be said to
have prejudiced, interfered with or tended to interfere with
the due course of justice within the meaning of s. 2(c)(ii)
of the Contempt of Court Act. These submissions formed part
of the record. [937 B-D]
In the instant case in his counter affidavit filed
after the Judgment was reserved the respondent stated that
he was filing the statements pursuant to the directions of
the Company Judge. The High Court was justified in declining
to issue a notice for contempt against the respondents. [937
A-E]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
427 of 1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17-10-1978 of the
Delhi High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7/78.
Appellant in person.
K.N. Bhat for Respondent No. 1
R.P. Bhatt, R.B. Datar and Girish Chandra for
Respondent 2.
P.G. Gokhale, B.R. Aggarwal, Jenendra Lal and M.S.
Diwan for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This is an appeal against an order passed
by the Delhi High Court refusing to initiate contempt
proceedings against the respondents. It appears that a
contempt matter was pending before a Single Judge, Delhi
High Court which was heard at length and the judgment was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reserved on the 9th December, 1977. The judgment was
actually delivered on 28-4-1978 and in between these two
dates certain written submissions were made by the
respondents to the Court which the appellant describes in
his petition as private communications
937
to the Company Judge. The respondent P.N. Kaushik in para 36
of the counter-affidavit has made a specific allegation that
at the time of reserving the judgment the Company Judge had
directed the parties to submit their written submissions
regarding the points at issue before the judgment is
delivered. The submissions in question were submitted on
various dates i.e. 12-12-77 by Major Kaushik, 23-1-78 and
15-2-78 by the Director-General of Resettlement. As these
submissions were made in pursuance of the order of the
Court, they cannot be held to be private communications to
the Company Judge in order to decide the case. As these
documents were filed before the Court under the directions
of the Court itself, it cannot be said by an stretch of
imagination that these documents prejudiced, interfered or
tended to interfere with the due course of justice within
the meaning of Section 2(c) (ii) and therefore, would not
constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of section
2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act. These submissions form
part of the record and, therefore, there is no question of
their being regarded as private communications from a
litigant to a Judge. On the contrary, the Director-General
of Resettlement was appointed as the administrator by the
Court itself and being an officer of the court, he was at
liberty to make submissions to the court in respect of the
case in question. The High Court therefore was fully
justified in declining to issue any notice for contempt
against the respondents on the submissions filed by the
appellant. We would refrain from making any comment
regarding the merits of the appeal which the appellant has
filed before the Division Bench against the order of the
Company Judge dated 28th April, 1978, which we understand is
pending hearing before the Division Bench. The appeal filed
by the appellant in this Court is totally misconceived and
is rejected.
In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as
to costs.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
938