HEMLATA Vs. PANKAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran and S. C. Nigam, JJ. Heard Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) THE facts of this case necessary for disposing of this application are that a special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was con verted into Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 1997 (Lalit Kumar Jain and another v. Jaipur Trad ers Corporation Private Limited ).

(3.) FOR the proposition, that obtaining judgment fraudulently or collusively amounts to criminal contempt punishable under section 2 (c) (iii) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it tends to interfere or obstruct with the administration of justice, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Murray and Company v. Ashok Kumar Newatia and another. JT 2000 (1) SC 337 It may be noted that the said case re lated to a situation where a wrong and false affidavit had been filed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had taken cognizance of the matter and held the contemnor guilty.