BABU RAM GUPTA Vs. SUDHIR BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the contemner under S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court dated 27th October, 1978 convicting the appellant under S. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to detention in civil prison for a period of four months.

(2.) A detailed narrative of the facts culminating in the order impugned is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again except giving a brief resume' of the important facts in order to appreciate the points of law that arise in the appeal. It appears that there was a partnership between Sudhir Bhasin and Jagatri Lal Bhasin as a result of which a firm under the style of Sitapur Theatres with its Head Office at Delhi was constituted. The partnership deed was executed as far back as 19-11-1965 and Cl. 25 of that deed contained the usual arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the partners as a result of which an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was made before the High Court and the High Court on hearing the application referred the dispute to the sole arbitration of a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. Along with the aforesaid application, the respondent Sudhir Bhasin had filed an application for appointment of a receiver as he apprehended that the appellant would misappropriate the funds of the partnership property. The application for appointment of a receiver was allowed and the respondent Sudhir Bhasin himself was appointed as a receiver of Laxmi Talkies, Sitapur. Thereafter the appellant being aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In the appeal it appears that a consent order was passed with the agreement of the parties by which Shri Mahabir Prasad, Advocate and Secretary, Bar Association of Sitapur was appointed as a receiver of the Laxmi Talkies pending the decision of the arbitrator and was directed to run the said cinema after taking possession from the appellant. This order passed by the High Court may be quoted in extenso as it forms the solid basis for the proceedings for contempt taken against the appellant by the High Court:

(3.) A persusal of the order extracted above clearly shows that there was no express direction to the appellant to hand over possession to the receiver although certain directions were given by the Court to the receiver for filing quarterly reports etc. The only direction given to the appellant was that he would not interfere with the receiver appointed or with the business of running of the Laxmi Talkies. The appellant was also directed to give all co-operation that the receiver may require. There was thus no specific direction to the appellant to hand over possession of the property to the receiver although impliedly this was meant to be done because the order was passed with the consent of the parties.