LexQUANTUM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. & OTHERS versus NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015) 8 S.C.R. 140 A QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. & OTHERS B v. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4914-15 of2015) JULY01,2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 - Order XXXIX, r. 3A c - Interim order pending Notice of Motion in civil suit - Contempt petitions by the plaintiff against the defendants alleging violation of interim order - Notice issued in the contempt petition - On appeal, held: Once the pleadings in reply to the Notice of Motion were complete, the court which D was seized of the main case, should have disposed of Notice of Motion in the light of mandate contained in Order XXXIX r. 3A - Direction to High court to dispose of the main Notice of Motion early-Any finding by this court would cause prejudice to the parties - The contempt proc(#edings to be decided E after the disposal of the main case - Contempt of Court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is always in the larger interest of the parties to the Lis to get the main case (Lis) decided first F on its merits as far as possible rather than to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping the main case undecided. It is more so when any deceision rendered in the main case has a bearing over the pending G off-shoot proceedings. There is no justification on the part of parties to keep the main Notice of Motion pending and prosecute its off-shoot proceedings in preference to the main case. [Paras 17 and 21] [147-G; 148-F-G] 2. The order dated 06.08.2013 was an ex-parte one. H In such circumstances, no sooner the defendants 140 . ~ .. QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI 141 TELEVISION LTD. (appellan1s) entered appearance in the civil suit and filed A their pleadings in reply to the Notice of Motion, the Court which is seized of the main case, should have made sincere endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on meri1s in the light of the mandate contained in.Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC which in clear terms provides that B the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which the ex-parte injunction was granted. [Para 18] [147-H; 148-A-B] c 3. Once the Notice of Motion is finally decided on merits, in accordance with law, one way or the other, then the parties to the lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse.to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal D or revision, as the case may be, and may ·also prosecute the contempt proceedings arising out of the main case, if need arises. [Para 20) [148-E] 4. When the issue on merits is seized of by the E original court in civil suit/proceedings and rights of the parties are still not decided on merits, then it is not proper for this Court to probe into the facts and record any finding on any of the issues arising out of collateral proceedings else the observation of this Court may F cause prejudice to the parties while prosecuting their case before the original court on merits. [Para 23] [149- C-D] 5. The High court is requested to dispose of the G notice of motion pending .before it, after affording an opportunity to both the p~rties, on meri1s strictly in accordance with law. Since pleadings in the said Notice of Motion were complete long back, there does not appear any kind of prejudice being caused to any of the H . . . 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R. A parties, if direction is issued for early disposal of the notice of motion on its merits. The Single Judge is requested to decide Notice of Motion on merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till it is B decided, the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise, are stayed. After the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedin·gs may be decided in accordance with law including its maintainability etc. [Paras 16 and 24) [147-E-F; 149-F] c D We/set Engineers & Anr. Vs. Vikas Auto Industries & Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 190(SC)- referred to. Case Law Reference -i,;; I 2006 (32) PTC 190(SC) referred to. Para 15 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4914-15 of 2015. E From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2014 in F Contempt Petition (L) no. 105 of 2013 in Notion of Motion (L) no. 1553 of 2013 in Suit (L) no. 677 of 2013 and Interim Order dated 31.10.2014 in Cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.