TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (IA No. 1/94) in a Transfer Petition being Civil No. 745/93, by way of an objection, on behalf of the respondent herein an application for clarification moved by the petitioners herein. The factual backdrop not strictly relevant but is being noticed herein below for the purposes of assessment of the situation in its proper perspective. The litigation between the parties has a chequered career. Proceed-ings both at Calcutta and at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh have been initiated by the parties and diverse orders were obtained including an order of injunction passed on 14th May, 1993 by the Calcutta High Court restraining the respondents herein from transferring or alienating or encumbering or dealing with immovable properties standing in the names as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Petition (the High Court Petition) without the leave of the Calcutta High Court. The factual matrix further depict that the respondents herein, how-ever moved this Court for transfer of the original suit from Calcutta to Kanpur in which an application for clarification was filed by the petitioners herein and it is in connection therewith that the respondents have averred in the petition of objection v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit at Calcutta is in the nature of a cross-suit filed by the some shareholders seeking almost the identical relief against the defen-dants who are Directors of the company. It appears that two rival groups in the company are engaged in this continuous litigation trying to score over each others. It is seen that not only is the suit filed in Kanpur eariier in time but the registered office of the company is also at Kanpur. We are told at the Bar the income-tax returns of the company are also filed at Kanpur. It goes without saying that the two suits otherwise deserve to be decided by one and the same Court. For what has been said earlier, the balance of convenience also suggests that the Court at Kanpur should be the most convenient Court to try these two suits. Therefore, we allow this transfer petition and direct that the file of OS 166/93 titled Ajanta Service P. Ltd. Ors, v. Murray Co. P. Ltd pending in the Calcutta High Court be transferred to the file of the Civil Judge, Nagar Kanpur so that the same is tried along with the suit No. 649/93 Murray Co. Pvt. Ltd. Co. v, Madanlal Poddar Ors.. Transfer Petition is allowed accordingly.'' Needless to record here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n these cases bring to focus the mixed blend of efficacy of pragmatic procedure under Section 32; absolute disregard for truth; rank indiscipline among the so-called disciplined police force, despite scientific advancement persistence of crude methods of investigation; depraved conduct of the official to forge signa-tures of higher official and the complicity of persons who moved this Court in callous compromise with the officials to speak con-trary to the facts placed before the Court. A.practicing advocate is no exception. He had sworn to an affidavit but had not even the slightest hesitation to make a somersault and deny his averments made in the sworn affidavit filed in this Court. These disturbing trends cause not only a deep anguish to this Court of the degenera-tion in the moral and official conduct but also make it difficult to place absolute reliance on affidavit evidence placed on record. This Court further in paragraph 7 of the report observed : 7. The report of the District Judge exposes the so-called disciplined police officials are rank undisciplined not only audacious enough to forge the signature of respondent- Superintendent of Police but also have no com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of injunction passed by the Calcutta High Court which operate as a binding order inter parties and while the operation of the order was in force, some properties have been alienated, but in an affidavit affirmed before this Court, there is an averment to the effect that no property has been disposed of neither there is any intention even to sell or dispose of any of the properties. Undoubtedly, if the factum of the sale deed as annexed to the petition for contempt is otherwise correct, there is thus a definite averment which runs counter to the actual state of affairs - a serious matter indeed. But probably not so serious, a matter, as was dealt with by this Court in Afzal's case. As such the observations of this Court as above ought not to be made use of in the facts of the matter under consideration. It depends upon facts of each individual case and this cannot have universal application in ail possible situations. The decision thus lands no assistance to Mr. Ray in the contextual facts. Mr. Ray next relied upon the decision of this Court in Rita Markand v. Surjit Singh Arora, [1996] 6 SCC 14, wherein in paragraph 14 of the report, this Court observed that there canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and thus thereby interfered with the due course justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching to a correct conclusion. Incidentally, in the matter under consideration, there is no plea of justification and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents without any reservation, whatsoever, pleaded unconditional apology before this Court and it is on this perspective that this apology is to be considered as to whether the same is otherwise proper and sufficient remedy in the matter under consideration. Undoubtedly, the matter is rather serious and there is not an iota of doubt as regards the falsity of the averments by reason of the preponderance of the documentary evidence. But since the matter is pending in the Civil Court, we are not expressing any opinion insofar as the document of sales is concerned and as such further proceed-ing in the matter will have to be only on the assumption of correctness and not on its falsity, though, however, subject to further orders of the Civil Court. But the fact remains as to whether this particular statement has in any way impeded the course of justice by reason of which certain definite advantage has been gained by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of being held guilty of contempt by reason of a definite and deliberate false statement. The statement on oath is a fabricated one and contrary to the facts and there exists no extenuating circumstances to come to any other conclusions than as above. As regards the question of punishment, be it noted that punishment in one matter cannot be the guiding factor for punishment in another. Punishment has a co-relation with facts and in each case where punishment is imposed, the same must be resultant effect of the acts complained of -more serious the violation, more severe is the punishment - and that has been the accepted norm, in matters though, however, within the prescribed limits. Incidentally, Section 13 of the Act of 1971 postulates no punishment for contemptuous conduct on certain cases and the language used therein seems to be with utmost care and caution when it records that unless the court is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court, but it must be shown that the act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral, Andhra Pradesh, [1981] 2 SCC 577. For proper appreciation of the intent of legislation, Section 13 as also Section 2(c) are set out hereinbelow. Section 13 reads as under : 13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interfere, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Section 2 (c) is noted as below : 1. Definitions ; In this Act, unless the context otherwise re-quires; c Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
