Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6156 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.20679 of 2008)
Three Cheers Entertainment
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
C.E.S.C. Ltd. … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J .
1. Leave granted.
JUDGMENT
2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment
and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta dismissing their appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1970 (for short, ‘the Act’) and holding them guilty of violation of the
Court’s order dated 31.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said
Court.
Page 1
2
3. Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) is a producer of
some programmes which are telecast.
4. One of such programmes known as ‘Khoj Khabar’ was telecast by ETV
(Bangla) alleging some illegal acts and malpractices on the part of the Calcutta
Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (CESC) an undertaking engaged in generation
and supply of Electricity in the town of Calcutta.
5. On or about 13.5.2004, CESC filed a defamation suit in the original side
of the Calcutta High Court claiming not only damages of 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty five crores only) but also a decree for permanent injunction. Along with
the said suit, an interlocutory application marked as G.A.1812 of 2004 was filed
claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :
“a. Injunction be passed restraining the respondents
and each one of them by themselves or by their
servants, agents or otherwise from publishing or
causing to be published by broadcasting/
telecasting any defamatory programmes similar
to that as telecast on March 12, 2004 and March
29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 contained in
Annexure A and B hereto or otherwise in any
manner whatsoever.
JUDGMENT
b. The respondents be restrained from re-
telecasting and/or showing a repeat telecast of
the programme ‘khoj khabar’ shown on March,
12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30,
2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed
to hand over the same.
c. A receiver be appointed over all materials,
documents, films, tapes and materials connected
the said telecast ‘khoj khabar’ made on March
Page 2
3
12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30,
2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed
to hand over the same.”
6. Indisputably, on or about 17.5.2004 a learned Single Judge of the High
Court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction in terms of prayer ‘a’ and
‘b’ thereof only.
7. It is now not disputed that although some lawyer had appeared for the
appellants in the said suit but no ‘Vakalatnama’ on their behalf was filed. It is
furthermore not in dispute that the said lawyer appeared for a few days and
thereafter stopped appearing in the suit or in the said interlocutory matter.
8. Notices having been served upon the appellents, the matter relating to
confirmation of ad interim order of injunction came up before the learned Single
Judge of the High Court on 30.11.2005. While noticing that the defendants in
the suit had not opposed the prayers of injunction, although they were earlier
represented through counsel, it was opined that apart from the order of interim
JUDGMENT
injunction as prayed for in prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the interlocutory application, a
receiver should also be appointed, holding :
“Having regard to the nature of the matter, I think the
order of injunction will not subserve the interest of
justice as there is possibility to telecast the same from
programme recorded in this disc by the defendants
and/or their agents and/or servants. In order to prevent
further telecasting or propagating of this slanderous
statement I am inclind to pass order in terms of prayer
(c) of the petition. Accordingly, Mr. Subrata
Mookherjee, Advocate of bar Association, Room No.1
Page 3
4
and Mr.Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Advocate of Bar
Association, Room No.2 High Court are appointed as
Joint Receivers with a direction to take possession of
all material documents, films and materials connected
with the said programme. “Khoj Khabar’ telecast on
th th th
12 March, 2004, 29 March, 2004 and 30 April,
2004 at 10.00 pm and also copies of CD, if they are
available in that office. The Receiver shall make an
enquiry as to whether these cassettes have been
distributed to any other person or persons and to whom
and the person in charge and/or the director of the first
defendant, are directed to disclose by making a
statement before the Receiver whether any copy of CD
has been distributd to any other person or persons in
any manner whatsoever or not. This matter is
otherwise disposed of.”
9. The learned receivers who were supposed to have taken prompt action
failed and/or neglected do so. They did not visit the office of the company for
taking possession of the relevant documents and the DV (wrongly stated in the
order as CDs) immediately after the said order was passed. It is stated at the Bar
that the time for filing a report was extended.
10. Appellants, however, contend that on 11.1.2006 some representatives of
JUDGMENT
CECS visited their office and asked them to handover all materials connected
with the telecast. They were allegedly threatened that if the materials were not
handed over, they would be in contempt.
11. This stand on the part of the appellant is, however, denied and disputed by
CESC.
Page 4
5
It now stands admitted that a copy of the said order was not served on the
appellants. No copy of the order was sent to them by the respondent. Even the
learned Joint Receivers did not intimate the appellant about their appointment.
12. The Joint Receivers appointed by the High Court, however, visited the
office of the appellant on 14.1.2006. They asked the appellants to hand over all
the documents and CDs. As according to the appellants such documents had
already been handed over to the representatives of the CESC, they expressed
their inability to do so. Minutes of mexercise for leg pain reduceeeting were
recorded which are to the following terms :
“In terms of the Hon’ble Courts order, we approached
Mr. Sanat Ray to handover the materials documents
films connected with the said programme telecast on
12.03.2004, 29.03.2004, 30.04.2004 at 10 am and also
the copies of the CDs and also enquired Mr. Ray
regarding the CD whether the has or his representative
has been distributed to any other person or persons in
any manner.
We Joint receivers asked Mr. Ray to hand over
the CDs, films and materials for the above dates. Mr.
S. Ray submits that they never telecast any news
through CD, they used to telecast through Cassettes
(DV).
JUDGMENT
Mr. Ray further submits that they used to show
the news programme by DV Cassette only. Not by any
film or CD and they did not have any films or
documents or master CD or Cassettes with him nor did
he hand over did he has hand over to any one.
All of us were taken to the Cassette Library by
Mr. Ray, we thoroughly checked each cassette and
films and other documents in the said cassette Library
Rooms. In presence of the abovenamed person we did
Page 5
6
not find any CD of the above dates, films, documents
and cassettes. We have collected a new sealed cassette
from the rack of the cassette Library. It has been
submitted by Mr. Ray that they used to telecast their
daily programme through such cassettes.
We the Joint Receivers tried our best to get the CD and
Cassettes, documents and films from Khoj Khabar
Office in presence of the plaintiff and their
representative but found nothing.
th
Mr. Ray further submits that on 11 January 2006 a
group of four persons who identified themselves as
officers of CESC and staff of Court came to Mr. Ray,
and after showing the Order of the Court dated
30.11.2005 took away the Cassettes as Mr. Ray was
perturbed he could not collect the names of the persons
and record their identity. This has been done in
presence of some staf of Khoj Khabar namely :
1. Mr. Shankar Saha who maintains the daily telecast
Register.
2. Mr. Ratan Das who maintains the Car records.
3. Mr. Rabi Shankar Saha, Assistant of Ratan Das,
and
4. Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, Chief Cameraman.
However, Mr. Samar Ray lastly stated that he could
recognize those aforesaid persons if he finds them.”
JUDGMENT
13. The matter was placed before the learned Single Judge on 18.1.2006. In
view of the aforementioned minutes of meeting, appellant No.3 herein (Sanat
Kumar Ray) was asked to affirm an affidavit as regards the events which
purported to have taken place on 11.1.2006. An affidavit was affirmed.
14. In view of the said affidavit, vis-a-vis, the minutes of meeting prepared by
the learned receivers and the stand taken by the respondent company herein, trial
Page 6
7
was ordered on the following issues by the learned Single Judge in terms of an
order dated 15.3.2006 :
“1. Whether any CECS official visited the office of
Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. as alleged
in paragraph 6 or not?
2. Whether material documents and material
connected with the programme Khoj Khabar and
CDs and cassettes were handed over by the said
deponent, Sanat Ray CESC officials on 11
January, 2006?”
15. It is not in dispute now that having regard to the change in determination,
the trial has begun before another learned Single Judge on and from 9.6.2006
and the same is yet to be completed.
16. The contempt matter, however, keeping in view the provisions contained
in Rule 5 and 6 of the Contempt of Courts (Calcutta High Court) Rules, 1975
was placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed the order dated
30.11.2005.
JUDGMENT
17. The learned Judge proceeded to hear the contempt matter on affidavits
filed by the parties although the trial on the aforementioned issues was
incomplete.
18. Each one of the alleged contemnors was held guilty of contempt of court
on the premise that they have violated the directions issued to them to hand over
the documents and DVD Cassettes and other materials to the Joint Receiver.
Page 7
8
19. Before taking note of the findings of the learned Judge, we may notice
that in the contempt proceedings, the appellants, inter alia, raised the following
contentions :
“After examination and cross examination were over
on the aforesaid issues the present application for
th
contempt has been taken out on 26 of September,
2006. I am told that issue has not been decided nor
there is fact findings as to whereabouts of the DV
(mother) cassettes. The present application has been
made for willful and deliberate violation of the order
th
passed by this Court on 30 November 2005 by not
handing over DV (mother) cassettes and other
materials to the joint Receivers.”
20. The plea of the appellants, therefore, was that even if they had committed
an error in handing over the material and DV to the representative of the CESC
rather than the joint receivers, it was a bona fide one. They tendered
unconditional apology therefor.
The learned Single Judge, however, as regards the plea of the Director of
JUDGMENT
the Company held :
“In my view he should not have left Calcutta until the
order was carried out or if he had any urgent business
he should have approached this Court and asked for
time for carrying out order. From analysis as above it
no doubt establishes his deliberate and willful violation
of the order of the Court. Therefore, I hold him guilty
for committing contempt of the court as the DV
(mother) cassettes were not handed over to the Joint
Receivers.”
As regards, Shri Sanat Ray, it was opined :
Page 8
9
“While examining the stand taken by the respondent
No.4, I found that he is an over smart person and he
has made all possible effort to outwit the officers of
the Court if not Court itself. He is literate and English
knowing person and having complete understanding of
the purport of the order. In spite of that he had taken a
stand at first that he allegedly handed over DV
cassettes to CESC officials being accompanied by the
Court officials, before Receiver and then in his
affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings as well as
the affidavit filed earlier point of time after the visit of
th
the Receivers on 14 of January, 2006, he stated that
he handed over the same to CESC officials. This
version is unacceptable as none of the persons namely
(1) Mr. Shankar Saha (2) Mr. Rattan Das (3) Mr. Rabi
Shankar Saha and (4) Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, has come
th
toward to corroborate testifying in Court that on 11
January 2006 CESC officials visited the office of the
first respondent and respondent No.4 handed over the
DV (mother) cassettes to them. The CESC officials
th
have denied the fact of the visit on 11 January, 2006
which was a holiday. Thus, CESC officials have also
stated on oath in the trial on evidence they did not visit
on that date nor did they have any occasion to visit on
that date the office of the respondent No.1 as they were
enjoying holidays. It is stranger no suggestions was
put to them by the learned counsel for Mr. Sanat
Kumar Ray that they did visit on that date and DV
(mother) cassettes were handed over to the CESC
officials. Therefore, it is clear that a concocted story
has been made out to justify their so called mistake in
handing over.”
JUDGMENT
So far as the anchor, Krishna Kumar Mukherjee, is concerned, it was held:
“As far as the respondent No.3 Krishna Kishore
Mukherjee is concerned, I am of the view that he was
also responsible to see that the materials are handed
over in terms of prayer (c) to the Joint Receivers as the
direction was also binding upon him. Had he had any
difficulty he could have said this by filing affidavit that
he is not connected with the affairs of the respondent
Page 9
10
No.1. He was the anchor of telecasting this
programme so he had responsibility and should have
taken at least some measure to help the Receivers to
take possession of the DV (mother) cassettes
remaining present before the Receiver. So his act and
conduct amounts to aiding and abetting commission of
contempt of Court. I hold him also guilty for
committing contempt of this Court.”
21. An appeal in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act was preferred by the
appellants before the Division Bench, urging :
1. Appellants became aware of the order of the Court dated 30.11.2005
whereby the joint receivers were appointed only on 10.1.2006 as the said
order had admittedly never been communicated to the appellants, and
thus, the question of any deliberate or willful violation thereof did not
arise.
2. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the respondents had
admitted that they had not served any copy of the order to the appellant
JUDGMENT
prior to 10.1.2006.
3. The findings of the learned Single that appellant No.3, Sanat Roy, was
over smart, literate and English knowing was uncalled for as he has only
deposed before another Judge and, therefore, the learned Judge had no
occasion to note his demeanour.
Page 10
11
4. The learned Trial Judge furthermore committed an error in opining that
none of the four persons who were allegedly present had come forward to
corroborate his testimony, as the trial itself is incomplete.
5. The finding that no suggestion was put to them by the learned counsel of
Mr. Sanat Ray that some personnels had visited their office on that date
and DV Cassettes were handed over to the CESC officials is incorrect and
such suggestions, in fact, had been given.
22. The Division Bench of the High Court entered into the question as to
whether the purported contempt committed by the appellant was a civil
contempt or criminal contempt, which was not necessary.
While affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge,
however, the Division Bench opined :
“It is well-known fact that the proceeding is only a
form of execution and it appears to us that on the given
facts, there is no criminality in the disobedience and
the contempt, such as it is, is not criminal but the
contemnors, in our opinion, excepting the appellant in
APOT No.126 of 2008, Krishna Kishore
Mukhopadhyay, we hold that the Hon’ble First Court
correctly assessed the facts of the case and held that
they have committed contempt of court.
JUDGMENT
Hence, we do not find that there is any reason to
interfere with the order so passed by the Court and
after analyzing the decisions cited before us, we have
not been able to find out any clear distinction between
‘civil’ and ‘criminal’ contempt and the contempt
committed by the contemnors on the given facts
cannot be broadly classified as criminal contempt.
Page 11
12
Hence, we uphold the said order and dismiss these
appeal, save and except, in our considered opinion, on
the facts of the case and the materials on record as
placed before us, we hold that a contempt in respect of
the Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay cannot be
proceeded with, since on the given facts, with utmost
respect to His Lordship we come to the conclusion that
the said Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay, being the
appellant in the other matter (APOT No.126 of 2008),
cannot be said to be responsible to hand over the
materials to the Joint Receivers. Since we are of the
opinion that he had acted only on the date of
presentation of the said news telecasted on the said
date and, therefore, on the date of visit of the Joint
Receivers at the said premises to collect the mother
cassette, no role had to play by him to handover the
said cassette to the Joint Receivers.”
23. Before adverting to consider the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, we may notice some subsequent events after this special leave
petition was filed.
Appellants appeared before the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2008 when a
fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on each of them for the time being . Appellants
JUDGMENT
undertook to produce the CDs containing the programme in compliance of the
order dated 14.3.2008. The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 29.8.2008,
opined that the order dated 22.8.2008 has not sufficiently been complied with
and posted the matter for hearing on 5.9.2008, stating :
“They have also brought a compact disk of the
offending programme. According to me, this is not the
material which was asked to be handed over to the
Receiver. So this is not accepted by the Court. At
least a pretended attempt has been made to carry out
the order of the Court. But I have not got any
Page 12
13
materials to come to a conclusion that the same has
been collected from Akash Bangla Channel. Perhaps
this can be copied from the programme already telecast
nd
subsequent to passing of the order dated 22 August,
2008. I refuse to accept the same as being the
materials which were asked to be produced in terms of
the earlier order. For this purpose, I adjourn this
th
matter till 5 September, 2008. the contemnors will
reappear again on the next date at 3.00 p.m. once
again.
I make it clear deposit of fine will be an ad hoc
arrangement and after having found that the order has
been carried out fully this Court will pass appropriate
order.
After passing of the above order, it is submitted
for the first time on behalf of the contemnors that the
name of the contemnor No.2, in whose name the Rule
has been issued, is not debojyoti Basu but it should be
read as Dibyojyoti Basu. I have checked the
Permanent Account Number Card of the contemnor
No.2 and also the photograph appearing in the said
card. I find similarity between the contemnor No.2
and the photograph and the name appears in the said
card is Dibyojyoti Basu. In view of the revelation of
the above fact I direct the learned Advocate-on-record
of the contemnor No.2 to produce the papers used
before the Appeal Court. I also direct the Department
to produce the original affidavit-in-opposition used in
the contempt application by the aforesaid contemnor
No.2 on the next date of hearing.”
JUDGMENT
24. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, submitted :
(1) That as trial on the issues framed by the learned Single Judge himself in
terms of order dated 15.3.2006 is admittedly incomplete, punishment for
Page 13
14
alleged contempt of court could not have been imposed without waiting
for a finding of fact thereupon.
(2) In view of the terms of the order dated 30.11.2005 as CDs, materials and
documents were to be handed over to the Joint Receivers, only if they
were available with them and as they were not available on 14.1.2006,
appellants cannot be said to have committed contempt of the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2005.
(3) The purpose and object of the order passed by the High Court, as would
appear from the Orders dated 17.5.2004 and 30.11.2004 being to restrain
the broadcast of the programme ‘Khoj Khabar’ and in view of the
admitted fact that there has been no subsequent telecast of the programme
and, thus, the order of injunction having been complied with, the
judgment of conviction passed against the appellants is wholly
unsustainable, particularly when the said order dated 30.11.2005 was not
JUDGMENT
even known to the appellant prior to 10.1.2006.
(4) The Joint Receivers made a surprise visit only on 14.1.2006 and having
regard to the fact that nothing had been suppressed from the High Court or
the Joint Receivers, a case for initiating a proceeding under the Act was
not made out. In any event, as the trial is incomplete wherein the four
witnesses are yet to depose with regard to the events which took place on
Page 14
15
11.1.2006, the High Court committed an illegality in passing the
impugned judgment.
25. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents would, however, support the impugned judgment. It was contended
that although the categorical stand taken by the contemnors-respondents before
the learned Single Judge was that no DV Cassettes were available with them
when the Joint Receiver visited their office on 14.1.2006, they purported to
produce the same before the learned Single Judge on 29.8.2008, which were not
the original CDs, it has rightly been found that misrepresentations had been
made at all levels by the alleged contemnors and, thus, this Court should not
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
26. Civil contempt has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean :
“b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any
judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;”
JUDGMENT
27. Herein appellants are charged with commission of contempt of the High
Court on two counts that : (1) they did not hand over the materials to the Joint
Receiver; and (2) they affirmed a false affidavit regarding the events on
11.1.2006.
Page 15
16
The High Court failed to notice that a learned Single Judge of the High
Court passed an interim order only in terms of prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’. It is not a
case of the respondent that the appellants have violated the terms of the said ex
parte ad interim order. Assuming that some lawyer had appeared on behalf of
the respondents on earlier dates, the learned Judge himself had noticed that the
appellants were not represented on date when the order appointing Receiver was
passed.
28. In the aforementioned premise, it was obligatory on the part of the
respondents and/or the High Court itself to communicate the said order to the
appellants. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the presumption that
the appellants were aware thereof despite a categorical stand taken by
respondent itself that the said order had not been served. We do not find from
the judgment of the learned Single Judge that even the High Court
communicated the order to the appellant which course ordinarily should have
JUDGMENT
been resorted to.
29. We fail to understand as to on what basis, the Joint Receivers were
appointed. No prayer was made therefor on the said date. No application was
filed. The matter was placed before the learned Single Judge only for
confirmation of the ad interim order passed and not for deciding on the prayer
(c) concerned. A bare perusal of the said order would clearly indicate that even
a prima facie finding had not been arrived at warranting appointment of receiver.
Page 16
17
No reason has been assigned in support thereof. No jurisdictional fact that it
was just and proper to appoint a receiver as is required under Order XL Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure was recorded far less why the same was found to
be necessary and emergent. In any event, a show-cause notice at the first
instance should have been issued.
30. When the receivers were appointed, no question arose to issue any
direction upon the appellants. In fact, no such direction had been issued asking
them to hand over all documents, papers and CDs.
31. Mr. Rao, on a querry made by us contended that the issues were framed
on 15.3.2006 in the main suit. The said contention does not appear to be correct.
The proceedings started only on the basis of the minutes of meeting dated
14.1.2006 presented by the Joint Receivers before the High Court. The enquiry
was directed for the purpose of finding out as to whether the CECS officials had
indeed visited the office of the company on 11.1.2006 and whether the CDs and
JUDGMENT
cassettes had been handed over by the said Shri Sanat Ray to its officials or not.
It may be a step for initiation of a contempt proceeding but such a trial was
being conducted for the purpose of finding out the truth as to whether the court’s
order dated 30.11.2005 had, in fact, been violated or not. If a finding of fact was
necessary to be arrived as for ascertaining as to whether the contemnors-
respondents have violated the order of the court, it is difficult to comprehend
why the trial was not allowed to be completed.
Page 17
18
Indisputably, the majesty of the Court is required to be upheld. The Court
must see that its orders are complied with. But for the said purpose, a roving
enquiry is not permissible.
Several proceedings which seek to achieve the same purpose are unknown
to the process of law. If the trial was to be held on the issues framed by the
learned Single Judge, it should have been allowed to be brought to its logical
conclusion. When the trial was incomplete, we fail to see any reason why the
contempt proceeding was heard on affidavits. Even if that was done, reliance
was sought to be placed on the depositions of the witnesses in the said enquiry,
which was admittedly incomplete. Witnesses affirming affidavits before the
learned Single Judge were not being cross-examined so as to enable the counsel
for the parties to draw their attention to the earlier statement made by them in
terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
32. On what basis comments against Sanat Rai were made that he was ‘over
JUDGMENT
smart person’ although he did not examine himself before the learned Single
Judge is not known. It will bear repetition to state that on the one hand the
witnesses in support of the said statement of the said Shri Sanat Ray was yet to
be examined in the trial and on the other hand the learned Judge commented that
his testimony remained uncorroborated. Attention of the learned Judge
furthermore was not drawn to the Question No.25 which was put to Shri Aditya
Page 18
19
Goswami who examined himself on behalf of CECS and Question No.20 put to
Shri Anil Chatterjee, which are as under :
“25. As regards incident dated 11.1.2006 when it has
been said by the defendant that CESC personnel took
away the cassettes from their office – what is your
comment about the same?
Actually, I am the dealing officer, I was entrusted with
this case. I know that I am the only one who is
entrusted so I know the fact, except myself nodbody
would possibly visit the office of the Three Cheers
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and furthermore on 11.1.2006
it was the holiday under the NI Act on account of Id-
ul-Juha. CESC office was closed on that date.
XXX XXX XXX
th
20. Can you say on authority that on 11 January,
2006 none from the CESC office went to the office of
the defendant?
I can say upto where my knowledge goes nothing
beyond that.”
33. The Division Bench of the High Court, unfortunately, did not bestow its
JUDGMENT
consideration on these vital aspects of the matter.
No sufficient or cogent reason has been assigned therein. The purpose
and object of initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of the said Act is
only to see that the order of the Court is complied with and not to unnecessarily
proceed against persons as if they are petty criminals. We are pained to notice
that even the Director of the company who was not in town was hauled up for
contempt opining that he should not have left Calcutta until the order was
Page 19
20
carried out or if he had any urgent business, he should have approached the court
and asked for time for carrying out the order. We have noticed hereinbefore that
the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the appellants were directed to
hand over the materials, documents, film scripts and materials connected with
the telecast ‘Khoj Khabar’;, it was not so. We have furthermore noticed
hereinbefore that the Court even did not bother to see that the order of the court
was intimated to the appellants. Why the order dated 30.11.2005 was not made
known to the appellants till 10.1.2006 is baffling and despite the same it was
observed that the said order was within the specific knowledge of the appellants.
In our opinion, the facts and materials placed before us do not establish that
there was any willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of the
appellant.
34. Mr. Rao, when asked, failed to satisfy us that the rules framed by the High
Court had been complied with. If the trial had begun with a view to find as to
JUDGMENT
whether the statement of the appellant that he had handed over the materials to
the CECS officials was correct or not, why another proceeding should be
initiated simultaneously before another learned Judge is beyond anybody’s
comprehension.
Contempt of court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all
seriousness.
Page 20
21
In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman & Ors. [(2001) 3
SCC 739], this Court held :
“ 13. Before however, proceeding with the matter any
further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the
Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather
cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing
itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct.
The court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the
conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of
justice which if allowed, would even permeate in our
society (vide Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia ).
This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law
courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous
conduct or obstruction the majesty of law.”
In Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 530], this Court
held that a contempt of court proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, the
burden to prove would be upon the person who made such an allegation. A
person cannot be sentenced on mere probability. Willful disobedience and
contumacious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be punished. Such
a finding cannot be arrived at on ipse dixit of the court. It must be arrived at on
JUDGMENT
the materials brought on record by the parties.
Yet again in Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. [(2002) (4)
SCC 21], it was opined :
“ 15 . It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere
disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to
amount to a ‘civil contempt’ within the meaning of
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 – the element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring
home the charge within the meaning of the Act and
Page 21
22
after noticing various provisions of the Calcutta High Court Rules held :
“The Court may, however, in a contempt proceeding
take such evidence as may be considered necessary.
Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it
seems that neither was any notice of contempt issued
to the appellant nor any hearing took place except what
has been noticed hereinbefore.
The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be
exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act
adversely affects the administration of justice or which
tends to impede its course or tends to shake public
confidence in the judicial institutions. This
jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act
complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or
dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the
courts of law. (See Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union
of India ).”
JUDGMENT
Recently in Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.) [2008 (7) SCALE
484], this Court held :
“It is a well settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible of the order which is
ambiguous, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable.”
Page 22
23
It was furthermore opined that the effect and purport of the order should
be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety.
35. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, did not advert
to any of the aforementioned contentions of the appellant.
36. Although, it was not necessary for us to advert to the subsequent events,
Mr. Rao himself has sought to draw inspirations from the subsequent conduct of
the parties impelling us to refer the same.
If Appellants have been found to be guilty of commission of contempt,
they should have been punished on the same day. Why the extra ordinary
procedure of asking them to appear on another day for hearing on quantum of
sentence was adopted is not understood. They had not been asked to purge their
contempt. They made a voluntary statement that they would produce the CDs
which should have been taken at its face value or should have been rejected.
JUDGMENT
We also do not appreciate that a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the
appellants by an order dated 22.8.2008 ‘for the time being’. We have not been
shown any provision in the Act or any precedent that a court may impose
sentences upon the contemnors in piece meal.
So far as the submission of Mr. Rao that original cassettes have not been
produced is concerned, we must notice that what was produced by the appellants
was the CDs taken from (ETV Bangla). What has been produced before the
Page 23
24
th
learned Single Judge on 29 August were not the DV Cassettes which Sanat Rai
stated to have been parted with on 11.1.2006.
37. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 30.11.2005 and
22.8.2008 are also set aside.
The High Court, in our opinion, would be well advised to take up hearing
of the suit as expeditiously as possible. If notice of suit has not been served upon
the company, it may be done forthwith. The company may file its written
statement, if not already done, within three weeks from the date.
38. As orders of injunctions in terms of Prayer ‘a’ and ‘b’ are in operation and
CDs are already in possession of the court, we in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the contempt
proceedings itself be dropped. The amount of fine deposited by the appellants
should be refunded by the High Court forthwith.
JUDGMENT
39. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs
payable by Respondent No.1 to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority,
Calcutta. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.
……………………….J.
(S.B. Sinha)
……………………….J.
Page 24
25
(Cyriac Joseph)
New Delhi;
October 20, 2008
JUDGMENT
Page 25