GOVIND SAHAI versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 30-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVIND SARAI 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OJ<' U.P. 
April 30, 1968 
(V, RAMASWAMl, G. K. MITTER Al'D C. A. VAIDIA!,lNGAM, JJ.] 
B 
Conten1pt of Court-Suit filed by a political parJy n1e111ber-E:rpulsion 
o/ member from party in p11rs11a11ce of party reso/11tio11-lf a111011111s to 
contenrpt of court. 
The s°"ond respondent a member of a political 
party filed a suit 
challengin.~ the el°"tion of his opponent to a commill°" of the party. He 
also obtained an inlerim injunction restraining his opponent from taking 
C 
part in certain el°"tions. 
The appellant<;--0ffice-bearers of the 
party, 
issued letters expelling the s°"ond respondent from the organisation in 
pursuance of an earlier resolution of the party which barred reference of 
such dispute to law courts and provided for summary removal of any 
member who initiated a suit. The opponent of the second 
rcsp<indent 
moved the coun for vacating the injuncLion, in which the second appcl· 
!ant filed an affidavit staling the expulsion of lbe second rcspandent. The 
second respandent moved the Munsif for taking proceeding• in contempt 
D 
a~inst the appellants, which was dismissed. 
Thereupon he filed 
con· 
tempt application in the High Court and the High Court held the appel-
lants guilty of contempt court. In appeal, rhis Court : 
HELD : The appellants were guilty of contempt of court. 
The passing of the orders of l"Xpulsion, by the two appellants against 
tho second respondent. and the filing of a supporting affidavit, in the suit 
E 
by the second appellant, clearly indicated that it was a deliberate attempt, 
by the appellanl•. to interfere with, instituted by second respondent. in the 
conduct of the litigation, instituted by him. It was no answer that the 
action, by way of expulsion was taken on the basis of the ""°"lution of 
the partv and to enforce discipline in the organisation. [181 F-G] 
Pra<ap Si11g/1 v. Gurbakslt Singlt [19621 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 838 followed. 
Webster v. Bakewell Rural Co1111ci/, [1916] 1 Ch. 300 distinguished. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 65 
of 1966. 
App•!al by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 20, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal 
Misc. Contempt Application No. 76 of 1964. 
G 
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellants. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. 
This appeal, by special leave, _is directed 
H 
against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, 
dated September 20, 1965, passed in Crimi!1al Miscellaneous 
Contempt Application No. 76 of 1964, 
finding the appellants 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
GOV!ND SAHAl v. U.P. STATE (Vaidialingam, /.) 
177 
guilty, of having committed contempt of Court, and sentencing 
each of them, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. They ~ave also been 
directed to .. pay the costs, in the contempt proceedmgs. 
The first appellant died, duri.ug th~ pei:dency. <?f this appe~L 
As a fine has been imposed, agamst him, m addition to the lia-
bility to pay costs, his widow has been brought on record, as 
his legal representative, and allowed to continue these proceed-
ings. 
The circumstances, 
under which the contempt proceedings 
came to be initiated, in the High Court, may be briefly indicated. 
The second respondent, herein, Sri V. P. Singh, is an advocate, 
practising at Azamgarh, and he was a member of the Congress 
organisation, at the material time. 
He stood for election, for 
membership of the Prarambhik (primary) Congress Committee, of 
Tarwa, in the District of Azamgarh, held on 'April 10, 1964. 
His opponent was one Badri Singh. In that election, Badri Singh 
was declared elected. The second respondent filed, on April 16, 
1964, a suit, No. 132 of 1964, in the Court of the City Munsif, 
Azamgarh, for having the election of Badri Singh, declared void 
and inoperative. He had alleged various irregularities, regarding 
the conduct of the said election. 
Along with the suit, he had 
also filed an application, for injunction, restraining the District 
Election Officer, and other Officers, from holding elections for 
membership of the District Congress Committee. He had also 
asked for an injunction, restraining Badri Singh, from taking 
part in the elections, for membership of the District Congress 
Committee. The City Munsif had granted the interim injunction, 
on April 18, 1964. 
Badri Singh, on being served with this 
interim order, filed an application, dated April 21, 1964

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