Calcutta HC: Sharing screenshots of virtual Court proceedings on LinkedIn amounts to Contempt of Court

In course of the hearing today, this Court indicated to the parties the following

impropriety evident from the aforesaid screenshot/publication; ‐

[a] a screenshot of Court Proceeding has been taken which is equivalent to a

photograph of a Court Proceeding, without the leave of this Court.

[b] The screenshot was published in a personal web page of a website called

‘Linked In’ about two months ago without the leave or knowledge of this Court.

[b] an insinuation may be evident from the aforesaid writing on the page in

question seen with the screenshot.

The department is directed to number a suo motu contempt proceeding against Mr.

S. Kakrania, Advocate who shall answer the Rule that is issued herewith.

Formal drawing up of Rule and service of the same is dispensed with since Mr.

Kakrania is personally present in the hearing today. 

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

ORIGINAL SIDE

GA NO.820 OF 2020

WITH

CS NO.2 OF 2017

LINDSAY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD VS. LAXMI NIWAS MITTAL & ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

Date: 12th August, 2020.

Print Page

Whether private complaint is barred as per S 195 of CRPC if a party has filed the forged documents in the court proceeding?

 In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005 

Decided On: 11.03.2005

Iqbal Singh Marwah  Vs Meenakshi Marwah 

Print Page

Whether legal proceeding means ‘proceedings only in courts’?

 The expression “legal proceeding” has been the subject
matter of consideration in the Federal Court decision in
Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd.,
AIR 1946 FC 16. In that decision Section 171 of the Indian

Companies Act, 1913 came up for consideration. That Section
reads as follows:
“When a winding-up order has been made or a
provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or
other legal proceeding shall be proceeded with or
commenced against the company except by leave
of the court, and subject to such terms as the court
may impose.”
16. The Federal Court held that the expression “other legal
proceedings” in Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913
comprises any proceeding initiated by the revenue for recovery
of tax dues under the Indian Income Tax Act. There is no
warrant for a narrow construction of such expression asmeaning ‘proceedings only in courts’. The Federal Court
specifically held that initiating and putting into force the
collection of arrears of income tax as arrears of land revenue by
authorities under the Income Tax Act would be a “legal
proceeding”.
17. In Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) v. Suresh Chandra
Mahaveer Prasad Mantri, Bombay, 1987 (3) SCC 99, this
Court had to construe Section 5 of the M.P. Sahayata Upkram
(Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978. Section 5 of the said
Adhiniyam reads as follows:
“5. Suspension of suits or other legal
proceedings against relief undertakings.—As
from the date specified in the notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 3, no suit or other legal
proceeding shall be instituted or commenced or, if
pending, shall be proceeded with against the
industrial undertaking during the period in which it
remains a relief undertaking any law, usage,
custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award,
settlement or other provisions whatsoever
notwithstanding.”
18. This Court referred in detail to the aforesaid Federal Court
decision, and further went on to hold that Section 5 would
include execution petitions that were filed to execute decrees
under the Code of Civil Procedure.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8756 OF 2016
Ludovico Sagrado Goveia 
V
Cirila Rosa Maria Pinto and Ors. .
Dated:September 6, 2016
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINESC906

Print Page

Whether filing of false affidavit in court proceeding amounts to interference with administration of justice?

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalised or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message perculates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, [1995] 1 SCC 421, the respondent produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. 

Supreme Court of India

Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

Bench: Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin

CASE NO. Writ Petition (crl.) 15 of 1994

Citation:AIR 1995 SC 1795

Print Page

What will be effect of fraud on court proceeding?

In the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRS. & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has warned against permitting the process of the Court becoming an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigations. The Apex Court has observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. The Hon'ble Apex Court expressed concern that more often than, not, the process of the Court is being abused. Property-

grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. The Apex Court has ruled unhesitatingly that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation.

The aforesaid position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. & 1 (1994) 1 SCC 1 In the context of the observation of the High Court in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) that there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. V. Papayya Sastry (supra) quoted with approval the observations in paragraph 5 of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra). The relevant observations read thus :

"28. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations ig of the High Court as "wholly perverse", Kuldip Singh, J. stated : (SCC p.5, para 5) "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

[Emphasis supplied] 17] In the context of commission of fraud by obtaining consent decrees in order to defeat the right of the mortgagee bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. 2 (2007) 4 SCC 221  Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 3193 has held that fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.

Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.

Bombay High Court

M/S. Mountain Villas vs Dy. Registrar Co-Operative ... on 5 February, 2016

Bench: M.S. Sonak

Citation:2016(2) ALLMR447

WRIT PETITION NO. 11679 OF 2014

Print Page

Whether family court can make use of skype facility for court proceeding?

Increasingly Family Courts have been noticing that one of the parties is stationed abroad. It may not be always possible for such parties to undertake trip to India, for variety of good reasons. On the intended day of examination of a particular party, the proceedings may not go on, or even get completed, possibly, sometimes due to pre- occupation with any other more pressing work in the Court. But, however, technology, particularly, in the Information sector has improved by leaps and bounds. Courts in India are also making efforts to put to use the technologies available. Skype is one such facility, which is easily available. Therefore, the Family Courts are justified in seeking the assistance of any practicing lawyer to provide the necessary skype facility in any particular case. For that purpose, the parties can be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner, who can bring a mobile device. By using the skype technology, parties who are staying abroad can not only be identified by the Family Court, but also enquired about the free will and consent of such party. This will enable the litigation costs to be reduced greatly and will also save precious time of the Court. Further, the other party available in the Court can also help the Court in not only identifying the other party, but would be able to ascertain the required information.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Matters Under Article 227 No. 1107 of 2016

Decided On: 24.02.2016

Appellants: Shilpa Chaudhary 
Vs.
Respondent: Principal Judge and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Suneet Kumar, J.

Citation: 2016 (116) ALR 206,AIR 2016 ALL122

Print Page

Whether accused can be permitted to sit during court proceeding?

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1260 wherein while dismissing the SLP, the Court has made the following observations:-

2.One of the grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge is said to be biased against the accused is that he did not allow them to sit down during the trial. It is not right or proper that the accused were not provided with a sitting place during the trial which has gone on for the past seven months. We direct that the learned Sessions Judge will permit the accused to sit down during the trial. In fact, we are unable to understand how any Court in our country can at all insist that the accused shall keep on standing during the trial, particularly when the trial is long and arduous as in this case. We hope that all the High Courts in India will take appropriate steps, if they have not already done so, to provide in their respective Criminal Manuals prepared underSection 477(1) of the Criminal P.C. that the accused shall be permitted to sit down during the trial unless it becomes necessary for the accused to stand up for any specific purpose, as for example, for the purpose of identification. We need not add that the facility to be accorded to the accused for sitting down during the trial should not be construed as in derogation of the established convention of our Courts that everyone concerned should stand when the President Officer enters the Court. With these observations we dismiss the Special Leave Petition.

Madras High Court

A.Jaiganesh vs Tamil Nadu Thro' Its Chief ... on 1 July, 2015

CORAM
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.19438 of 2015

Read full judgment here: click here

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to use language other than English in High court?

Gujarat High Court. In a Criminal Revision Application before it under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., where the applicant wanted to appear party-in-person and present and argue his case in Hindi before the High Court and had also brought another friend to assist in Gujarati, the High Court decided against allowing use of any language other than English to be used in the proceedings before the Court.

The High Court held that Article 348(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India r/w Rule 31A and 37 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 clearly lay down that no language other than English could be used in a proceeding before it since the Language of the Court under Article 348(1) is English and Article 348(2) allows any other language to be used only if there is authorization by the Governor with previous consent of the President of India to this effect. However there is no such previous authorization of the Governor, in effect, in State of Gujarat. The High Court also held that Rule 31A of Gujarat High Court allows a party-in-person to assist the Court only if he has the ability to both understand and express in English. The Court can, in specific cases, allow written submissions to be in Gujarati as laid down in Rule 37; however, oral submissions have always to be in English only, which is the lahnguage of the Court under Article 348(1) of the Constitution.

The Court also relied on various Supreme Court judgments to drive home its point viz. Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247, where the Governor of M.P., under Article 348(2), with the consent of the President, had authorized use of Hindi language in the court proceedings. So the language could be thus used.

However, in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1970) 3 SCC 738, when Mr. Raj Narain insisted for arguing in Hindi and the learned advocate for the other side and the members of the Bench were unable to understand his argument in Hindi, the Supreme Court provided three options and since none was acceptable to him, his intervention was cancelled. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Criminal Reference No. 4 of 2015 in Criminal Revision Application (for Maintenance) No. 201 of 2015,

Decided On: 08.07.2015

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Print Page

Whether Wikipedia is having evidentiary value in court proceedings?

It is the submission of the appellant that it is now an established position, internationally in law that Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary value in the court proceedings. The same has been held by the US Court of Federal Claims in Taylor Mary Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 69 19

Fed. Cl. 775 (2006) and by the US Court of Appeals in Lamilem Badasa v. Michael B. Mukasey 540 F.3d 909. 

Supreme Court of India

T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. on 3 March, 2011
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan

Print Page