MURRAY AND CO. versus ASHOK KR. NEWATIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 25-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,, ., 
MURRAY AND CO. 
A 
v. 
ASHOK KR. NEWATIA AND ANR. 
JA.Nl.JAR Y 25, 2000 
(G.B. PATIANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.[ 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Contempt petition-Arose as a result of the litigation spirit of the 
parties-Merits of-Held : This, by itself, should not affect the merits of the C 
contentions raised. 
Section 2(c)-False statement on oath--Contemnor deliberately made 
a false statement on oath before the Supreme Court-Held : Amounts to 
contempt of court. 
Section 2(c}--Oiminal contemprAdministration of justice-lnter-
ference with-field : Whether or not a person has obtained a definite ad-
vantage in making a false statement is immaterial in deciding whether the 
person has committed contempt of court-However, it is a relevant factor for 
D 
imposing tile quanrum of punishment. 
E 
Section 2(c) and 13-f'unishmen~'Due course of justice"-lnter-
ference with-Scope of-Held : Substantial interference is necessary before 
imposition of punishment. 
Section 2(c) and 13--Punishment-Quantum of-Held: Depends upon 
particular facts and circumstances of each individual case-No generalised 
guidelines can be laid down-However, accepted nonn is: more serious the 
violation, more severe is the punishment. 
F 
Section 13-f'unishment -Positive assertion off act deliberately made G 
in an affidavit before the Supreme Court knowing it to be false with a view 
to gaining a possible advantage-{Jnconditional apology tendered-Held : 
This, by itself, would not exonerate the contemnor-ln the circumstances of 
the case, imposition of fine of Rs. 2,500 on each contemnor would sub-serve 
the ends of justice. 
H 
367 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Words and Phrases : 
"Due course of justice"-Meaning of-In the context of S.13 of the 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 
The petitioner and the respondents initiated proceedings both at 
B Calcutta and at Kanpur and obtained diverse orders including an order 
of injunction from the High Court restraining the respondents from 
transferring or alienating or encumbering or dealing with immovable 
properties without the leave of the High Court. 
The respondents, however', moved this Court f11r transfer of the 
C originnl suit from Calcutta to Kanpur in which an npplicatio:i for clnrificn· 
tion was filed by the petitioner and it is in connection them--;ith that the 
respondents had averred in the petition of objection verified by an nffidavit 
to the following effect :· 
D 
" ................ it is further incorrect to say that the petitioner in any 
manner has committed disobedience of the order passed by the C1111rt or 
sold away the property or in any manner tatting any steps to sell the 
property. The cc::itentions to the contrary are false and fictiti1111s ........ .". 
The above statement was stated to be a deliberate falsehood and the 
E said false statecent v1as made 'l>'l'llntonJy as the respo::idl!nts !mw1 that the 
pn1perty was sold long pri11r fuereto. 
The FtitiGnc-, tL"a'Cfore, r.!M tb prese:it ro;:tc:.:Jpt Jetltio:l hdo:re 
this Court and notice \1'ZS issued to the mipond:e::its for t<Tona assertio:i 
of fucts pertaining to the sale of immovable property i::i the afildavlt. T"nere 
F \tas no plea of justification and the Advocate appearing for the respon· 
dents, without any reservation whats11ever, pleade4 u:iconditionnl npol113Y 
before this Coort. 
The question that arose before this Court wns wbeC!.<er the said false 
G statement made by the respondent in the afildavlt, i:n fact, l11Wirn!d the 
authority of ilie Court or there \;as any obstruction to the administration 
of justice by tbis Court brbiging it v.ithin the purview of Sectillll 2(c)(iii) 
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in the event the answer to the 
above issue is in the affirmctive, then and in that event to what result? 
H 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEW A TIA 
369 
HELD : 1. Contempt petition is the result of the litigation spirit 11f A 
the parties and an attempt to score over each 11ther. Bnt that by itself, 
hov.·:ver, would not prompt this Court to come to a conclusion as regards 
the merits of the contentions raised in the matter. [374-G] 
2. The right to inflict punishment for contempt 11f court in terms of B 
the Contempt of Co11rts Act, 1971 on the Law Courts has been for the 
purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. 
Tite purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity 
of the 

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