P D GAUR Vs. BALASUNDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a petition under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1952, filed by N. Balasundram, the appellant was held guilty of committing the contempt of this court and was administered a severe warning by R. P. Khosla, J. The appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against his conviction.

(2.) THE petitioner, N. Balasundram , is the proprietor of Messrs. Eastern electronics, Faridabad, and he has obtained an ad interim stay order from the vacation Judge in Civil Writ No. 979 of 1967 staying recovery of the amount of sales tax due on the petitioner's furnishing bank guarantee for the amount in question within two months from the date of order. This order was confirmed on 21st of July, 1967, Sarkaria, J. , and the time was extended by three weeks for putting in the security i. e. , upto 18th of August , 1967. On 18th of August, 1967 further extension of two months was granted in the presence of the Advocate for the State and the Departmental Authorities. On 22nd August, 1967 , P. D. Gaur, appellant, went to the office of the Eastern Electronics to find out whether the period for furnishing security had been further extended by the High Court. The petitioner, N. Balasundram, alleged in his petition that P. D. Gaur went to his factory on 22-8- 1967 at about 10. 00 A. M. and threatened Shri B. N. Sharma, manager, with arrest of the petitioner and attachment of his property. The manager told him that the Taxation Department was time and again willfully disobeying the order of this Court whereupon P. D. Gaur asked the Manager to submit an affidavit to the effect that the stay was still operative and valid and time for furnishing the bank guarantee had been further extended. As the petitioner had already left by air for Madras, his Manager regretted his inability to comply with the direction of P. D. Gaur. Ultimately, the Manager gave him a letter addressed to K. R. Awasthy, Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, stating that the time for furnishing bank guarantee had been further extended till 16th october , 1967. P. D. Gaur filed his reply to the contempt petition in whi;ch he stated that an 22-8-1967, he did not go to execute any warrant against the petitioner but visited his office for eliciting information if any extension order had been issued and he was informed that a further extension had been allowed on 18-8-1967. He pleaded that he had not committed any contempt and that the rule might be discharged.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge who tried the contempt petition held that since the order for extension of the time for furnishing bank guarantee had been extended on 18th August, 1967, in the presence of the counsel for the Departmental authorities including P. D. Gaur , there was no justification for the appellant to plead that he had no information about the order having been passed. The learned "single Judge, therefore, held him guilty of contempt and administered severe warning in view of the fact that the appellant had thrown himself at the mercy of the court and had tendered an unconditional apology.