LexYATIN NARENDRA OZA versus KHEMCHAND RAJARAM KOSHTI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 4 S.C.R. 756 Y ATIN NARENDRA OZA v. KHEMCHAND RAJARAM KOSHTI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 841 of2016) AUGUST 31, 2016 (DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) Contempt of Courts Act, I97 I - Petition pertaining to unwarranted speeches rendered, letters written or statements given by appellant - High Court issued notice under the Act and directed him not to indulge in any kind of scandalous activity or hold official meeting and pass resolution - On appeal, held - Appellant tendered unconditional apology and undertook not to speak on the subject in issue in public except in court proceedings - Apology offered by appellant treated to be sincere - Accordingly he is exonerated. Advocates: Relationship between Bar and Bench - Necessitous conduct expected to sustain the majesty of the institution - Discussed -Professional /Legal ethics. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The apology offered by the appellant and affidavits filed by him are treated to be sincere and accordingly he is exonerated. If the appellant speaks in the tenor he has spoken, that may tantamount to ex facie contempt of the Court. The appellant to constantly remind himself that the standing and dignity of the Court matter to the nation and also to the collective. (Paras 16,17) [762-C, E] C. Ramachandran Iyer v. Justice A.M Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 sec 457: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 319 ; R.K. Garg v. State of H.P. (1981) 3 SCC 166: 1981 (3) SCR 536 ; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, In re (1995) 3 SCC 619 : 1995 (3) SCR 450; O.P. Sharma and Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86: 2011 (6) SCR 301; Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 127: 2013 (6) SCR 263 - referred to. 756 Y ATIN NARENDRA OZA v. KHEMCHAND RAJARAM 757 KOSHTI & ORS. Case Law Reference 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 319 referred to Para2 1981 (3) SCR 536 referred to Para 10 1995 ( 3) SCR 450 referred to Para 11 2011 (6) SCR 301 referred to Para 12 2013 (6) SCR 263 referred to Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3491 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2016 of the High Com1 of Gujarat, atAhmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10077 of 2016. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mihir Thakore, R. Oza, Sr. Advs., Apurva Kapadia, Purvish J. Malkan, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advs. for the Appellant. Harin P. Rawal, K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Mohit Paul, Vikas Arora, Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Asim Pandya, Percy Kavina, Mahesh Agrawal, Ankur Saigal, Shashank Manish, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal, by special leave, assails the order dated 27.4.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRMP (Contempt of Court) No. I 0077of2016 whereby it has, after referring to assertions made in the petition and reproducing certain paragraphs from C. Ravicltmulran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bliattacliarjee 1 , directed as follows:- "9. Let there be a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act returnable on 2.5.2016 to respondents. In the mean time and till the returnable date, the respondents are restrained from indulging in any scandalous activity or holding official meeting and passing resolution on the subject matter as it is expressly prohibited and could be said to be contemptuous as per decision of Supreme Court in case of C. Ravichandran Iyer ( supra)." 1 (1995) s sec 457 A B c D E F G H 758 A B c D E F G 1-1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R. 3. When the matter was listed on 29.4.2016, this Court after hearing leamed counsel for the parties, as the respondent no. I, who had initiated the contempt of court, had entered caveat, passed the following order:- "Having heard learned counsel forthe petitioner, we are, as advised at present, not inclined to vary or modify the order passed by the High Court and, accordingly, we direct that the said order shall remain in force till 12.05.2016. However, we direct that the contempt proceedings before the High Court shall remain in abeyancetill 12.05.2016." 4. To appreciate the controversy, narration of facts, in brief, is necessary. As has been stated hereinbefore, the High Court entertained the application for contempt of comt being moved by the I st respondent, a member of the Gujarat High Court Advoc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.