B.N. SHIVANNA versus ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 1 
B.N. SHIVANNA 
v. 
ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1038-1039 of 2004) 
MARCH 14, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Contempt of Court Acts, 1971 - Criminal contempt -
Lawyer betraying faith of his client - Appel/ant-Advocate 
committed fraud upon his client (respondent-company) and C 
embezzled Rs. 72 lakhs by misusing orders of Court which 
he knew to be incorrect - Contempt proceedings - High Court 
convicted appellant under the Act and sentenced him to six 
months imprisonment - Justification of - Held: Justified -
Appellant was beneficiary of the fraud and guilty of committing o 
contempt of court -
Conduct of the appellant was 
reprehensible and amounted to interference in administration 
of justice - No leniency permissible considering the gravity 
of the charges - Conviction and sentence upheld. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 19 - New plea in E 
criminal appeal before Supreme Court - Maintainability of -
Contempt proceedings against appellant - Conviction by High 
Court - Challenged before Supreme Court on procedurai 
grounds - Objection raised by appellant that the contempt 
proceedings had been conducted in utter disregard of the F 
statutory rules framed for the purpose - Held: The appellant, 
for reasons best known to him, did not agitate the issue before 
the High Court - No explanation was furnished by the 
' 
appellant as to under what circumstances, the question of fact · 
, 
was being agitated first time before the Supreme Court -
G 
Moreso, such an issue could not be agitated in absence of 
any application under s.391 of CrPC for taking additional 
evidence on record - No document was filed even before the 
Supreme Court to establish that the statutory provisions had 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A not been complied with - Objection raised by appellant was 
mere hyper-technical and did not warrant further consideration 
- Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - High Court of Karnataka 
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 - Rule 7. 
8 
Advocates - Duty of Advocate - Held: An Advocate is 
duty-bound to protect the dignity of the court and to behave 
towards his clients in an -appropriate manner. 
The appellant , an advocate practicing in the High 
Court of Karnataka, was engaged as a Retainer by 
C respondent-company for its cases pending in various 
courts in Karnataka. It was alleged that by taking undue 
advantage of his position, the appellant played fraud 
upon the respondent-company by furnishing to it, copies 
of fabricated and forged orders purportedly passed by 
D the Karnataka High Court and embezzled a huge sum of 
Rs. 72 lakhs under various pretexts including payment 
towards purchase of court fees from stamp vendor and 
payment of professional charges to other advocates; and 
as such, interfered with the administration of justice. The 
E High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings 
against the appellant, suo motu (CCC (Crl.) No. 12 of 
2002] and also at the instance of the respondent-
company the [CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002] and ultimately 
convicted the appellant for committing criminal contempt 
F of court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 
a period of six months. Hence, the instant appeals under 
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
The appellant contended before this Court that the 
contempt proceedings had been conducted in utter 
G disregard of the statutory rules framed for the purpose, 
namely, the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court 
Proceedings) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 7 thereof; that 
respondent company had also launched criminal 
prosecution against the appellant and his conviction 
H herein would adversely affect his case in the said criminal 
•· 
·• 
B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 
3 
case; and further that some officials of the respondent-
A · 
company hatched a conspiracy to amass wealth and that 
is why they had enroped the appellant and his relatives 
in these cases. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. The appellant, for the reasons best known 
to him, did not agitate the issue as regards the application 
B 
of the provisions of Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka 
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981, before the 
High Court and no explanation has been furnished by the c 
counsel appearing for the appellant as under what 
circumstances, the question of fact is being agitated first 
time in criminal appeals before this

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.