DAMAYANTI G CHANDIRAMANI Vs. S VANEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS proceeding for contempt of court been initiated by the High Court of the report submitted by Mr. Vimadala, judge city civil court, Bombay (as he then was) in respect of the an incident which took place in his court on 4th March 1963. The facts leading unto the incident on the 4th March 1963 may be briefly outlined as follows: The plaintiff Mrs. Damayanit G. Chandiramani, filed a suit against the defendants S. Vanvey, for recovery of possession and arrears of compensation on the basis that the defendants was a licenses and that the license was revoked. That suit was filed on 26th October 1962. After the service the summons, the defendants attended the office of Advocates punwani, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit for inspections of the documents,. This was on 10th November 1962. On 10th January 1963 the defendants stared prosecution under section 24 of the Rent control Act against the plaintiff her parents and Advocates punwai on the basis in that the plaintiff. The presidency Magistrate, before him the whom the prosecution was launched, issued process only against the plaintiff the took out a notice for motion in the suit for possession asking the for temporary injection restraining the defendants from proceedings with the prosecution launched by him under of section 24 of the Rent Control Act. The mother of the plaintiff who held and affidavit in support of notice of Motion. The notice camp up for hearing on 4th March 1963, and it is in the course of the arguments on the Notice of motion and incident from which this proceedings has arisen took place. Before dealing with the happening of 4th March 1963 in the court in Judge Vimadala it is necessary to set out a few more facts.

(2.) ON 10th January 1963 the defendants launched a prosecution against advocate punwani for determination. This complaint arose in the following circumstances the defendants had started a criminal case (No 588/s of 1962) on 23rd October 1962 against the member of the managing committee of Bela Housing society for defamation. It may be mentioned that the flat in possession in the suit in the city civil courts was which belonged to Bela co = operative Housing, society. In criminal case No. 588/s of 1962 Advocate Punwai appeared for the accused, i. e. , the member of the managing committee. Mr. Punwani argued that the defendants who complained of libel against himself had no reputation to defend. It was the case for the Defendants that the statement made by Mr. Punwani in the course of the argument amounted to defamation and that is why he stated prosecution against advocate punwani on 10th January 1963 under section 500 Indian Penal Code, On 26th February 1963 the defendants stared a criminal case against the plaintiff father ,her mother members of the managing committee and advocate purnwani for intimations and insult and advocate punwani of abatement of the said offense. It may bee mentioned at this stage that the Advocated punwani happen to be the legal adviser of the Bela co = operative housing society. The defendant had refused to become a member of the said Housing Society. Because of his refill to become a member of the said society, the managing committee passed a resolution that the use of the lift should be refused the occupants who were not members of the Housing Society. A notice a was put up in that occupants who weren't members of housing society. A notice was put-up in that regard. The defendants alleged that the two lift - man and advocate punwani actually prevented him from using the life and the in that way insulted him. It is not that basis that he longed the complaint on 26th February 1963 of the insult and intimation. It would thus be seen that that two cases launched by the defendants against Advocates punwani were pending onto day where notice that the motion come up for hearing before Judge Vimadalal on 4th March 1963. It appears thatch criminal case launched by the defendants on 26th February 1963 was dismissed on 13 the March 1963 without issuing process against any of the accused.

(3.) LET us now turn to the happenings of the 4th March 1963. Advocate Punwani inthe course of his arguments, referred to the contents of paragraph (6) of the affidavit put in by the plaintiff attorney is support of the Notice of Motion Paragraph (6) of the affidavit runs thus. "i say that the defendants seems to be notorious litigent. He has been convicted fourt times for offence under the Indian Penal Code, the last of which was for assulting a lady [case No. 135/p of 1951] for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonments for three months, as recorded in the judgment dated 3rd October 1952 of he 8th Court, Explanade, Bombay. He has filed many cases against the owners of the Guest Houses or Hotels where he was used to residebefore shifting to the suit premises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " the apparent object of advocate Punwani in referring to the contents of paragraphs (6) of the said affidavit wasto show that the defedants was in th habit of the launching upon vexatous by thehim under S 24 of the Rent control act against the plaintiff stood in the same category. It may be recalled that by notice of Motion, the plaintiff had asked for atemporary injunction restraining the defendants from proceedings with the criminal complaint lodged by him under section 24 ofthe Rent Control act. The learned City Civil judge asked the defendants asto whether he had to say anythings with regard to the allegations contained in the pargaraph (6) of the affidavit. The defenants stated that he would be see to its that the plaintiff advocate, Mr. Punwani would go to jail, that two criminal case had already been filed by the defenands himself against the plaintiff advocate the said Mr. Punwani and that he was would give tow more criminal cases a gainst the shortly. It appears that judge vimadala made a note of the these statement a on the docket sheet and asked the defedants to explain as to why he should not be proceeded with for contempt of court. The defedants did with for contempt explanantion and on the 12th March 1963, judge vimadalal submitted a report to the High court requesting that action for contempt of court should day he disposed of the Notice of Motion, and made the rule, which was already granted restraining the defendants from proceedings with cirminal case unde section 24 of the rent control act. Absolute.