In the case on hand on a perusal of the letter referred to above, we find there can be no doubt that it is written in good faith. All that is expressed in the letter by Smt. Vimala is about her own anxiety about the situation in which she is placed. The Advocate has not sent that letter secretly to the Presiding Officer. He has sent a copy of it to the Chief Justice. All that is done in the letter is an attempt to put the Presiding Officer on guard while passing the final order. There is no impolite or disrespectful language employed in the letter.
1. This is a reference made under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the Act') by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore relating to a pending judicial proceeding in H.R.C. No. 10233/94 on the file of his Court.
2. The said eviction petition had been filed by one Misrilal Sankethi against the respondent Manohar in respect of a shop. In that proceeding an application I.A.I. came to be filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by one Vimala represented by an Advocate Sri. R. Krishnoji Rao for impleading herself as a co-respondent claiming that she is the tenant in possession of the petition schedule shop. That application came to be dismissed. Thereafter the parties to the petition filed a compromise petition wherein the respondent agreed to vacate the shop if 15 days time is given, and the matter was kept for passing orders on the compromise petition.
3. At that stage the applicant in I. A. I. Vimala, through her Advocate, wrote a letter dated 11-6-1995 to the Presiding Officer bringing to his notice that Smt. Vimala is in actual possession of the shop, the landlord has colluded with a third party in order to obtain an eviction order behind the back of Vimala and forcibly evict her with the help of the eviction order. She also stated therein under the circumstances she requested the Court to think before passing any such order adding that she is a patient undergoing treatment and if she collapses on account of a wrong order, he would be responsible. The Advocate also quoted several provisions of law in the letter in support of it and sent copies of the letter to the Chief Justice of this Court and other authorities.
4. Observing that by writing such a letter which is virtually a notice threatening legal action against him, Smt. Vimala and her Advocate have interfered with the administration of justice and have committed contempt of Court, the learned Presiding Officer has made this reference. He has also enclosed a copy of the letter addressed to him by Smt. Vimala.
5. We have heard the Advocate-General in the matter and have perused the letter in question. The learned Advocate-General submitted that in Bangalore City the landlords adopting such strategies to unlawfully evict the tenants is not uncommon, all that the applicant in I.A. has done through her letter is to apprise the Presiding Officer of a similar situation in her case and put him on guard requesting him to think before passing any such order and the judges should not be so sensitive to take such letters seriously. He submitted there are no grounds for this Court to take any action for contempt. We fully agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General. Such instances are frequent in Bangalore City and it is absolutely necessary for the judicial officers to be on guard against walking into such traps. The matter comes within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act. It reads as follows :-
"Complaint against Presiding Officers of Subordinate Courts when not contempt :
A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any Court to -
(a) any other subordinate court, or
(b) the High Court,
to which it is subordinate."
Explanation : In this section, "subordinate court" means any court subordinate to a High Court."
6. In the case on hand on a perusal of the letter referred to above, we find there can be no doubt that it is written in good faith. All that is expressed in the letter by Smt. Vimala is about her own anxiety about the situation in which she is placed. The Advocate has not sent that letter secretly to the Presiding Officer. He has sent a copy of it to the Chief Justice. All that is done in the letter is an attempt to put the Presiding Officer on guard while passing the final order. There is no impolite or disrespectful language employed in the letter. We may refer to the following observations made by Sri. Krishna Iyer J., in Baradakanta v. Registrar Orissa High Court, :-
"The cornerstone of the contempt law is the accommodation of two constitutional values - The right of free speech and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be substantial and Mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel."
Further, in S. N. Chakraborty v. Mazomdar, it has been held :-
"Bona fide complaints against judicial officers addressed to authorities to seek redress to grievances and not intended to exert pressure upon them in the exercise of judicial functions or to diminish their authority as Judges cannot be treated as constituting contempt."
In Commentary on Contempt of Courts Act 70 of 1971 by Prof. G. O. Venkata Subbarao - second edition, it is observed as follows :-
"An application to the High Court by a litigant that the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority had not dealt with his Case properly, though couched in intemperate language, does not constitute contempt."
7. In view of this legal position and the facts of the case, the matter clearly comes within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act. We therefore find there is no need for initiating any contempt action in the matter.
8. Order accordingly.
Print Page
Karnataka High Court
K. Shivaram, Xiii Addl. Judge vs Vimala, Proprietrix And Another on 25 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996 CriLJ 3353, ILR 1995 KAR 2735, 1995 (5) KarLJ 37
Bench: C A Moorthy
1. This is a reference made under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the Act') by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore relating to a pending judicial proceeding in H.R.C. No. 10233/94 on the file of his Court.
2. The said eviction petition had been filed by one Misrilal Sankethi against the respondent Manohar in respect of a shop. In that proceeding an application I.A.I. came to be filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by one Vimala represented by an Advocate Sri. R. Krishnoji Rao for impleading herself as a co-respondent claiming that she is the tenant in possession of the petition schedule shop. That application came to be dismissed. Thereafter the parties to the petition filed a compromise petition wherein the respondent agreed to vacate the shop if 15 days time is given, and the matter was kept for passing orders on the compromise petition.
3. At that stage the applicant in I. A. I. Vimala, through her Advocate, wrote a letter dated 11-6-1995 to the Presiding Officer bringing to his notice that Smt. Vimala is in actual possession of the shop, the landlord has colluded with a third party in order to obtain an eviction order behind the back of Vimala and forcibly evict her with the help of the eviction order. She also stated therein under the circumstances she requested the Court to think before passing any such order adding that she is a patient undergoing treatment and if she collapses on account of a wrong order, he would be responsible. The Advocate also quoted several provisions of law in the letter in support of it and sent copies of the letter to the Chief Justice of this Court and other authorities.
4. Observing that by writing such a letter which is virtually a notice threatening legal action against him, Smt. Vimala and her Advocate have interfered with the administration of justice and have committed contempt of Court, the learned Presiding Officer has made this reference. He has also enclosed a copy of the letter addressed to him by Smt. Vimala.
5. We have heard the Advocate-General in the matter and have perused the letter in question. The learned Advocate-General submitted that in Bangalore City the landlords adopting such strategies to unlawfully evict the tenants is not uncommon, all that the applicant in I.A. has done through her letter is to apprise the Presiding Officer of a similar situation in her case and put him on guard requesting him to think before passing any such order and the judges should not be so sensitive to take such letters seriously. He submitted there are no grounds for this Court to take any action for contempt. We fully agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General. Such instances are frequent in Bangalore City and it is absolutely necessary for the judicial officers to be on guard against walking into such traps. The matter comes within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act. It reads as follows :-
"Complaint against Presiding Officers of Subordinate Courts when not contempt :
A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any Court to -
(a) any other subordinate court, or
(b) the High Court,
to which it is subordinate."
Explanation : In this section, "subordinate court" means any court subordinate to a High Court."
6. In the case on hand on a perusal of the letter referred to above, we find there can be no doubt that it is written in good faith. All that is expressed in the letter by Smt. Vimala is about her own anxiety about the situation in which she is placed. The Advocate has not sent that letter secretly to the Presiding Officer. He has sent a copy of it to the Chief Justice. All that is done in the letter is an attempt to put the Presiding Officer on guard while passing the final order. There is no impolite or disrespectful language employed in the letter. We may refer to the following observations made by Sri. Krishna Iyer J., in Baradakanta v. Registrar Orissa High Court, :-
"The cornerstone of the contempt law is the accommodation of two constitutional values - The right of free speech and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be substantial and Mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel."
Further, in S. N. Chakraborty v. Mazomdar, it has been held :-
"Bona fide complaints against judicial officers addressed to authorities to seek redress to grievances and not intended to exert pressure upon them in the exercise of judicial functions or to diminish their authority as Judges cannot be treated as constituting contempt."
In Commentary on Contempt of Courts Act 70 of 1971 by Prof. G. O. Venkata Subbarao - second edition, it is observed as follows :-
"An application to the High Court by a litigant that the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority had not dealt with his Case properly, though couched in intemperate language, does not constitute contempt."
7. In view of this legal position and the facts of the case, the matter clearly comes within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act. We therefore find there is no need for initiating any contempt action in the matter.
8. Order accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment