D D SAMUDRA Vs. VAZIRALLI PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Small Causes Judge, Mumbai, (Shri D. D. Samudra) for alleged contempt of the Court. The reference is upshot of an application moved by original Plaintiff to initiate contempt proceedings against Defendants/Respondents. Acceding to the request made by the Plaintiff, the learned Small Causes Judge has made the reference to this Court under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(2.) It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts and circumstances under which the reference has been made. Suffice it to say that the Plaintiff moved Interim Notice No. 4601 of 1999 in their suit before the Small Causes Court. Thereupon, direction was issued to the Defendants to furnish certain particulars as prayed for in the Notice. The Plaintiff took out another Interim Notice No. 2771 of 2001 alleging that the Defendants failed to comply with the directions issued earlier. The trial Court gave further directions to furnish particulars to the Plaintiff within a period of seven days and adjourned the suit to 14th January, 2003. The Plaintiff complained that the directions were not complied with and as such yet another Interim Notice No. 2421 of 2003 was moved to which the Respondents/Defendants filed their affidavit in reply. In the course of hearing of the Notice No.2421 of 2003, Advocate for the Respondents informed the then Presiding Officer (Shri M. V. Deshmukh) that he had written a letter to the Honourable the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and the Honourable Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 19th August, 2003. It is this letter (Exhibit "A") which is said to be contemptuous since it tantamounts to interference with the judicial work and as such the Plaintiff filed an application to initiate proceedings for contempt committed by the Defendants / Respondents.

(3.) A show cause notice was issued to the Defendants to which a reply was filed by them. The learned Small Causes Judge heard the learned Counsel for the parties and came to the conclusion that the letter dated 19th August, 2003 (Exhibit "A") prima facie amounts to contempt of the Court. Consequently, he made the instant reference.