G B JAIN AND SONS Vs. SHRIMAT PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This protracted Contempt Petition filed long back in June, 1998, captioned as "Criminal Contempt", under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", is still under adjudication as to whether disobedience of the order of this Court dt. 23.6.98 passed at 4.30 PM by the Vacation Judge of this Court at his residence in S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 340/98 (Misc. Petition No. 478/1998), amounts to Civil or Criminal Contempt.

(2.) Before narrating the brief facts as alleged in the Contempt Petition filed on 25.6.98, it is apparent from the body of Contempt Petition that it was titled as S.B. Criminal Contempt Petition but on 5.4.1999, when the case came up before the learned Single Judge, learned Addl. Advocate General raised an objection that the caption of the petition is "Criminal Contempt", therefore, the matter should be heard only by the Division Bench. At this point, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is a "Civil Contempt" and due to misconception, it has been stated as "Criminal Contempt". In view of the above arguments, the learned Single Judge deferred the matter for two days to first decide as to whether it is a "Civil Contempt" or "Criminal Contempt". Then the case was adjourned for one reason or the other. Ultimately, on 16.2.09, learned counsel Mr. M.S. Singhvi appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that this petition has become infructuous, as the Division Bench has already decided one of the issue involved in this Cr. Misc. Contempt Petition in D.B. Cr. Contempt Petitions No. 26/98 and No. 39/96 on 13.1.09. A copy of the said order was supplied to Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner, to which Mr. Bhoot wanted time to verify and make submissions on 20.2.99 and further submitted that unless the record of both these two D.B. Cr. Contempt Petition is called for, the proceedings of those Contempt Petitions cannot be referred in this Contempt Petition. Upon this, writ the consent of both the parties, the record was ordered to be called for, to decide as to whether this is a "Civil Contempt" or "Criminal Contempt as well as this petition and the case was posted on 25.2.09. Previous to that date, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application for correction of the caption from "Criminal Contempt" to "Civil Contempt" alongwith the amended cause title. Reply to the same was also filed by the respondents showing the conduct of the petitioner in judicial proceedings in S.B. Civil Revision No. 114/04. On 2.3.09, when the case was listed, disposal of this application for correction of caption was also kept open with the main petition. Accordingly, the arguments on the main petition alongwith the question as to whether it is a "Civil Contempt" or "Criminal Contempt" and the application for correction of the caption were heard at length.

(3.) The order of this Court passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 340/98 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 478/98 reads as under: