DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS versus SUBRATA DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 02-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

} ..... 
DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS 
A 
v. 
SUBRATA DAS AND ORS. 
APRIL 2, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Ss. 15 and 17-Proceedings for contempt of court-Procedure to be C 
followed-Writ petition filed before High Court alleging false representations 
made by appellant in its advertisements and prospectus using the name of the 
High Court-In appeal Division Bench of High Court noticing a false affidavit 
having been filed by appellant before it-High Court restraining the appellant 
from using the name of the High Court in its future advertisements and D 
publications as also holding him guilty of criminal contempt of court-Later 
on a contempt petition filed .against appellant for disobeying Court's order, 
High Court directing appellant to be taken into custody and subsequently 
releasing him on bail-Held, appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity 
before passing the two orders-Neither any notice of contempt issued to 
appellant nor any hearing took place in the contempt matter-Orders of High E 
Court set aside-On an undertaking given by appellant, contempt case disposed 
of-Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules,1975-Rr. 19 and 20. 
Appellant was running institutions of alternative medicines. A writ 
petition was filed in Calcutta High Court by respondent alleging false 
claims to have been made by the appellant in the publications and F 
advertisements issued in connection with admission to his institutions 
including that his institution was also approved by the High Court of 
Calcutta. Another writ petition was filed by a different person against 
another institution and its proprietor. The earlier writ petition filed against 
the appellant was disposed of by a Single Judge in terms of the order G 
passed in the subsequent writ petition. This order was challenged by the 
respondent in appeal before Division Bench on the ground that the writ 
petition filed by him was not disposed of on merits. The High Court .. noticed 
that the appellant had also filed an affidavit making a false statement 
therein that the Chief Justice of the High Court along with other Judges H 
709 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A attended a party along with the respondent in the second writ petition who 
was facing forgery charge. The Division Bench by judgment and order 
dated 11.5.1998 restrained the appellant and his institutions from using 
the name of the High Court or giving reference to any case decided by 
the said Court either in prospectus or in any advertisement. It also held 
B the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed upon him 
a fine of Rs. 2000. 
Later, respondent No. I also filed a contempt petition before the 
:,... , 
Division Bench alleging that the appellant was still using the name of the 
High Court in the Website and as such continued to violate the orders of 
C the Court. The Division Bench by order dated 10.7.1998 held that a case 
of gross and deliberate disobedience of the direction of the Court was made 
out; and directed the appellant to be taken into custody. Later the 
appellant was released on bail. The appellant filed the present appeals 
against both the decisions holding him guilty of contempt of court. 
D 
It was contended for the appellant that he was directed to be taken 
into custody without following the procedure envisaged by the Contempt 
of Courts Act, 1971 and the Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court 
Rules, 1975 and without affording any opportunity to the appellant to 
defend himself. 
E 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. On facts, the appellant was not granted reasonable 
opportunity before passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 
I Ith May, 1998 or the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998. On the 
Division Bench of the High Court not being satisfied about the contents 
F and tenor of the affidavit dated 29th April, 1998, counsel for the appellant 
sought an opportunity to file an affidavit tendering apology. That affidavit 
was tendered by the appellant on 5th May, 1998. Thereafter, no hearing 
took place. In fact, it seems that no hearing took place after 30th April, 
1998. When respondent No. I again moved the Court by the impugned 
G order dated 10th July, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody, and 
later released on bail. Thereafter time was granted to file reply to contempt 
application. At no stage was the appellant noticed of the contempt, as 
provided in Contempt

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