RAJ PRAKASH Vs. CHOUDHRY PLASTIC WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for taking proceedings for allegedly committing contempt of this court was moved by one Raj Prakash against M/s. Choudbry Plastic Works, Gali Bama, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and Mangat Ram Choudhry who is the proprietor of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works, by invoking Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, .1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. We issued notice of the application to the two parties mentioned above. A reply supported by an affidavit was filed by Mangat Ram Choudhry on his behalf and on behalf of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works submitting that no contempt of court had been committed, as alleged, and setting out the circumstances in which the alleged default was committed. An unqualified apology was also tendered. Raj Prakash filed a rejoinder to this reply reiterating that Mangat Ram Choudhry had dommitted contempt of court and asserting that the affidavit filed was false. It was further contended that apology with a justification could not be accepted and, in any case, the apology was not bona fide. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we, on December 2. 1977. took a prima facie view that a case of committing contempt of this court by Mangat Ram Choudhry was made out. Accordingly, we issued rule nisi to him in court when he was present to show cause why he should not be held liable for committing of contempt of this court in filing false affidavits, not complying with the orders of this court to make delivery in accordance with the delivery up order in R.F.A. (O.S.) 2 of 1973 and otherwise making incorrect and misleading statements. Mangat Ram Choudhry filed a further affidavit in reply to the rule nisi issued by us. At that stage a question arose whether the proceedings were for allegedly committing civil contempt or criminal contempt. Mangat Ram Choudhry had moved C.M. 101 of 1978 to seek clarification in this behalf. By our order of February 10, 1978 we clarified that rule nisi had been issued to Mangat Ram Choudhry for proceedings in the nature of civil contempt and not criminal contempt. We also directed that Mangat Ram Choudhry should first produce his evidence and thereafter the applicant Raj Prakash would lead evidence with liberty to Mangat Ram Choudhry to lead evidence in rebuttal. Evidence was produced by Mangat Ram Choudhry. As far as Raj Prakash is concerned he only appeared himself in the witness box. After hearing arguments on the conclusions of the evidence of the parties we reserved orders and now proceed to pronounce the same.

(2.) In order to appreciate the circumstances which led Raj Prakash to move the application under Section It of the Act it would be necessary to set out a few facts.

(3.) Raj Prakash filed a suit for permanent injunction and accounts against Mangat Ram Choudhry, his firm, Choudhry Plastic Works, and another firm M/s. Chacha Baloon Store of Agra, claiming that these three parties were infringing his patent rights in producing, marketing and selling a toy, which is a viewer using a 355 mm. medially cut positive film on which are printed one or more pictures viewed through a lens fitted in a viewer specially adapted tor use of such medially cut strips of 35 mm. positive films so as to get a virtual image of the same size as the virtual image of a normal frame in a 35 mm. film. Raj Prakash's patent, as. granted by the patent office, bore No. 111926. This suit was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court sitting on the original side. An appeal against that judgment came up for hearing before me sitting with S. N.Andley, C. J. We felt that the trial Court had failed to frame an imprtant issue and so. we framed an additional issue and remanded the case back for a finding on the said issue and the disposal of the suit thereafter. The learned single Judge gave his finding on that issue and again dismissed Raj Prakash's suit. The appeal (R.F.A. (OS) 2 of 1973) came up before B. C. Misra, J. and myself. This appeal we disposed of by the judgment dated March 25, 1977. Speaking for the Bench I held that Raj Prakash's Patent No. 111926 dated August 11, 1967 was not as determined by the learned single Judge but something entirely different. Indeed, during the hearing of the appeal we had got the matter clarified and Raj Prakash had made a statement as under :