UPENDRA MANI TRIPATHI Vs. CHANDRA SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the petitioner in person. He is a practising Advocate at Deoria. He prays to punish the contemnor Smt. Chandra Sheela, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deoria, Court No. 18, for allegedly committing criminal contempt.

(2.) THE facts, shortly stated, are that he filed Suit No. 140 of 1990, Upendra Mani Tripathi v. Cadila Leasing and Finance Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors., against Cadila Leasing and Finance Company (Pvt) Ltd., Calcutta and two others for the recovery of Rs. 22,238/-50P which, according to him represented the amount (with interest) overpaid by him to them relating to a contract entered into in April 1986 of hire purchase of a Jeep. The defendants allegedly played fraud on him by obtaining his signatures over about 100 unfilled and blank papers. He allegedly had no time or necessity to object to the said act of the defendants. The defendants allegedly received over payment of Rs. 18,033/-from him. For the recovery of the same (adding interest of Rs. 4205.50P), he instituted the suit in question for the total amount of Rs. 22,238/-50P. from the defendants. A copy of the plaint of the said suit No. 140 of 1990 has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

(3.) HOWEVER , the defendants obtained an order of stay dated 27-8-1993 (Annexure No.5 to the Writ Petition), passed by Calcutta High Court, staying proceedings of suit No. 140 of 1990 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 18, Deoria, which was extended by order dated 6-9-1993. A transfer application had been made by the defendants in Calcutta High Court in the name of Glitter Leasing and Finance Company (Pvt.) Ltd., inter alia, titling the same as being under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent 1865. A copy of the application made to the Calcutta High Court is Annexure No. 9 to the Contempt Petition. Cadila Leasing and Finance Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Calcutta, has been arrayed as defendant No. 1 by the petitioner in Suit No. 140 of 1990. The contention before the Calcutta High Court on behalf of the Glitter Leasing and Finance Co.(P) Ltd., formerly Cadila Leasing and Finance Company (P) Ltd., Calcutta, was that it was a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, carrying on business at Calcutta. The present petitioner was said to have purchased a Mahindra Jeep under the hire purchase agreement and an arbitration agreement was also executed between the parties on 2-8-1986. At that time, the company was carrying on business in the name and style of “Cadila Leasing and Finance Company (P) Ltd.”