IN RE Vs. ANIL KUMAR JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A legal preliminary objection has been raised about non-maintainability of the present contempt proceedings, which have been initiated against the contemnor an advocate, under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") regarding the alleged contempt committed by him of the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar. We have heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the contemnor as also learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the contemnor that Section 10 of the Act empowers the High Court to punish only in respect of Contempts of courts subordinate to It and a District Consumer Forum is neither a court nor a court subordinate to the High Court. As such the High Court has no jurisdiction to punish a person of any Act of contempt of Consumer Forum and the proceedings initiated against the contemnor by High Court are misconceived. In support of his argument learned counsel has relied upon Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, 2009 9 SCC 221 and Ethopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narayan Sood, 2011 8 SCC 539.

(3.) On the other hand learned A.G.A. has argued in support of the jurisdiction being vested with the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings even in respect of contempt committed of a Consumer Forum. According to him the Consumer Forum has all the trappings of the Court and as such under Section 10 of the Act is a Court and also subordinate to the High Court.