CHETAK CONSTRUCTION LTD. versus OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 20-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHET AK CONSTRUCTION LTD. 
v. 
OM PRAKASH AND ORS. 
APPIL 20, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 215 and 129-Contempt of court-Jurisdiction-Exercise of-
C Appellant filed an affidavit before the Single Judge of the High Court that 
he had learnt that the Single Judge purchased a flat fi'om the respondent and 
let it out-Appellant requested the single Judge lo decide whether or not to 
hear the appeal-Respondent did not deny the said allegation in his counter 
affidavit-Appellant filed a further application making the same a/legation 
D supported by documentary evidence requesting the Judge to recuse or relieve 
himself ji-0111 hearing the appeal and transfer the same to any other Judge of 
the High Court-Single Judge di.•::onlinued hearing the appeal but made 
~ 
certain remarks reflecting his feelings against the appellant and his la»yers-
Single Judge also suggested initiating of contempt proceedings by Supreme 
Court 011 reference to it against the appellant and certain lawyers-Held: in 
E the circumstances of the case, although the Single Judge rightly discontinued 
hearing the appeal, his remarks which are not based on objective 
considerations and contain general observations and irrelevant matters are 
conjectural in na/llre and were disapproved-No case for contempt made out 
by Single Judge-Hence, suggestion for initiating contempt proceedings by 
F 
Supreme Court on reference to it by Single Judge, rejected-Practice and 
Procedure-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
Articles 215 and l 29-Contempt of court-Jurisdiction-Exercise a/-
General principles-Held: lawyers and litigants cannot "terrorise" or 
"intimidate" Judges to "secure" orders which they want-Attempt on their 
G part at 'forum shopping'' not permissible-At the same time judicial powers 
niust be exercised impartially and within bounds of law by impersonal 
application by the Judge of recognised objective principles and not by 
resorting to subjective moods, preailections, emotions and prejudices-
\,.. 
Contempt of court jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction-It has to be exercised 
cautiously and sparingly and only for upholding the dignity of courts and 
H the majesty of law and to keep the administration of justice unpolluted-It 
1016 
CHET AK CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. OM PRAKASH AND ORS. 1017 
should be exercised only when justified by the facts and circumstances. 
A 
Article I 29-Direction to refer a matter to Supreme Court-By Single 
Judge of High Court-To initiate contempt of court proceedings-Propriety 
of-Based on docummtmy evidence, appellant alleged that the Single Judge 
of Indore Bench of MP High Court had purchased flat from respondent and 
B 
requested the Single Judge to refuse or release himself from the appeal-
~ 
Single Judge discontinued hearing the appeal but directed the appeal "to 
be referred" to Supreme Court for deciding it ''finally" and not to "remand" 
.. 
it to him or any other judge of any High Court-Held : The Single Judge's 
"direction" is without jurisdiction and subversive of judicial discipline-
Hence set aside-Appeal directed to be decided by a Judge of Jabalpur c 
Bench of the High Court. 
The appellant filed an affidavit before the Single Judge of the High 
Court, who was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant, that the appellant 
had learnt that the Single Judge purchased a flat from the respondent and 
let it out to the State Bank of India. The appellant, therefore, requested the D 
,: 
Single Judge to decide whether or not to hear the appeal. The respondent 
filed a counter affidavit not denying the said allegation. The appellant filed 
a further application supported by documentary evidence and requested the 
Single Judge to refuse to release himself from hearing that appeal and 
transfer the same to any other Judge of the High Court. 
E 
The Single Judge took exception to the appellant's application and 
observed that attempt was being made to malign him and the proceedings and 
that he was under no obligation to clarify the appellant's misrepresentation 
and that there could be no apprehension, much less a great or genuine 
apprehension, about his purchase of the flat. The Single Judge suspected F 
that it was the appellant who had tried to influence him in the name of a 
lawyer from Ahmedabad on STD. Referring to certain "pamphlets" the 
Single Judge observed that there was a group of persons including possibly 
some lawyers who were out to malign or b

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