J.K. GUPTA versus D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 04-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

-
J.K. GUPTA 
A 
v. 
D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 4, 2004 
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Ss. 2(c), l 3(B), 
14, 15 and 18. Complaint against a Computer Training Institute-MRTP 
Commi~sion directed the Institute not to admit students in the unrecognized C 
courses and also directed it against issuing any misleading advertisement-
Vacating of the order-Petition filed by the appellant making certain 
contemptuous allegations against the Commission-Chairman of the 
Commission found the appellant-Officer of the Institute guilty of criminal 
contempt and convicted him-On appeal, Held: Though the Commission has 
been empowered to exercise all powers as conferred upon a High Court to D 
punish for contempt but the power should have been exercised in accordance 
with the provisions and in the manner as prescribed under the Act-Provisions 
under Section 18 of the MRTP Act stipulate that the contempt proceedings 
shall be heard by a Bench comprising of not less than two Judges-Since the 
contempt proceeding was heard and determined by the Chairman alone, the 
provisions under Section 18 of the Act violated-Impugned order set aside- E 
Matter remanded to the Commission to dispose of the contempt proceedings 
in accordance with law-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 19. 
A complaint was filed against respondent No.2, a Computer 
Education Centre/Institute before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade p 
Practices Commission. The Commission passed an interim order' 
restraining the Institute from admitting students in any unrecognized 
courses and also restrained it from issuing misleading advertisement for 
job placement. Appellant, Service advisor of the Institute, filed a petition 
for vacating the order of injunction making certain contemptuous 
allegations against the Commission. The Chairman alone sitting as Single G 
Member considered the matter and fOl~nd the appellant guilty of criminal 
contempt and convicted him. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts 
963 
H 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Act and dismissing the other criminal appeal, the Court 
HELD: By virtue of Section 13B of the MRTP Act, the Commission 
has been empowered to exercise all the powers to punish for contempt 
which have been conferred upon a High court and the same have to be 
exercised in the manner prescribed under the Act. Language of Section 
B 18 of the Act that "cr:iminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and 
determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges" is very clear and 
unequivocal and in case of criminal contempt, the contempt proceeding 
has to be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. 
The contempt proceeding for punishing the appellant for criminal 
C contempt ought to have been heard by the Chairman along with an.other 
member or the Chairman could have assigned the matter for hearing to 
any two members of the Commission but he alone was not justified in 
hearing and detei:-mining the proceeding which was in violation of the 
provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed 
by the Chairman is liable to be set aside on this ground alone and the 
D matter has to be remitted to the Commission for disposal of the contempt 
proceeding in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Hence, impugned order is 
set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission to dispose of the 
contempt proceeding in accordance with law. Consequently, the Criminal 
Appeal becomes infructuous. (969-A, D, F, GI 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 664 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.97 of the Monopolies and 
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in C.P. in I.A. No. 82/ 
F 97 in U.T.P./R.T.P.E. No. 66 of 1997. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1184 of 1977. 
G 
Vijay Kumar and Atul Sharma for Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant. 
Ashok Bhan, D.S. Mehra and S.W.A. Qadri, for P. Parmeswaran, E.C. 
Vidya Sagar (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
J.K. GUPTA v. D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.) 965 
B.N. AGRA WAL, J. Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 has been filed A 
by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order rendered by the Chairman, 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commiss

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