A
•
936
MAJOR R. S. MURGA! (RETD.)
v.
MAJOR P. N. KAUSHIK (RETD.) & ORS.
October 12, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
Contempt of Court Act, s. 2(c)-Written submissions filed by one of the
parties pursuant to the directions of the· court after the Judgment was reserv ..
ed. If private comniunication tending to interfere lVith the due course of justice.
C
When one of the partiCs to a case pursuant to the directions of the court,
makes written submissions after the Judgment was reserved, such submissions
ca.nnot be cilled private communication to the Judge.
They cannot be &aid
to have prejudiced, interfered with or tepded to interfere with the due course
of justi"' within the meaning of s. 2(c) (ii) of the Contempt of Court Act. These
submissions formed part of the record. [937 B-D]
D
In the instant case in his counter affidavit filed after the Judgment wao
G
reserved the .respondent stated that he was filing the Statements pursuant to
the directions of !he Company Judge.
The High Court was justified in de,.
clining to issue a notice for contempt against the respondents. [937 A·E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 427
of 1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17-10-1978 of the Delhi
High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 /78.
Appellant in person.
K. N. Bhat for Respondent No. 1
R. P. Bhatt, R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra for Respondent 2.
P. G. Gokhale, B. R. Aggarwal, Jenendra'Lal and M. S. Diwan for
Respondent No. 3.
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F AZAL ALI, J.
'This is an appeal against an order passed by the
Delhi High Court refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against the
respondents. It appears that a contempt matter was pending before a
Single Judge, Delhi High Court which was heard at length and the
judgment was reserved on the 9th December, 1977. The judgment
H
was actually deliwred on 28-4-1978 and in between these two dates
certain written submissions were made by the respondents to the Court
which the appellant describes in his petition as private communications
/
,
....
_,.
,
,.._ .... ~
•
•
r
R. s. :M:tlRGAI v. p, N. KAUSHIK (Fazal Ali, J.)
937
to the Company Judge. The respondent P. N. Kaushik in para 36 of
the counter-affidavit has made a specific allegation, that at the time
<Jf reserving the judgment the Company Judge had directed the parties
to submit their written submissions regarding the points at issue before
the judgment is deHvered. The submissions in question were submitted
on various dates i.e. 12-12-77 by Major Kaushik, 23-1-78 and 15-2-78
by the Director-G1meral of Resettlement. As these submissions were
'made in pursuance. of the order of the Court, they cannot be held to
be private communications to the Company Judge in order to decide
the case. As these docnments were filed before the Court under the
directions of the Court itself, it cannot be said by an stretch of imagi-
. nation that these documents
prejudiced,
interfered or tended
to
interfere with the due course of justice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(c) (ii) and therefore, would not constitute criminal contempt
within the meaning of section 2 ( c) of the Contempt of Court Act.
These submissions .form part of the record and, therefore, there is no
·question of their being regarded rui private communications from a
litigant to a Judge. On the• contrary, the Director-General of Resettle-
ment was appointed as the administrator by the Court itself and being
an officer of the court, he was at liberty to make submissions to the
court in respect c.f the case in question. The High. Court therefore
was fully justified :in declining to issue any notice for contempt against
the respondents on the submis~ions filed by .the appellant. We would
:refrain from making any comment regarding the .merits of the appeal
which the appellant has filed before the Division Bench against the
order of the Comfany Judge dated 28th April, 1978, which we
understand is pending hearing before the Division Bench. The appeal
'filed by the appellant in this Court is totally misconceived and is
rejected.
In the circumsl ances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.
•
c
D
E
'F
Lex