Legal Reference Library

In response to an application related to Supriya Paul vs State, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has come down strongly against the petitioner and their advocate for filling multiple petition for similar relief. The Hon'ble court while issuing rule of contempt against Petitioners said that the Petitioners’ conduct amounted to an “abuse of process of Court”. The Petitioners had demanded transfer of criminal cases to any other competent Court, even though a similar relief had been rejected in earlier proceedings. The Court further referred the matter to the Bar Council of West Bengal for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the lawyer, Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar “for repeatedly instituting frivolous and vexatious proceeding for and on behalf of his client for the selfsame relief when such relief had been turned down by this Court with costs in an earlier proceeding wherein he had represented the said litigants.”

The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kapoor & Ors vs. Court on its Motion, has observed that a litigant refusing to answer a question put to him by the Court does not constitute criminal contempt of Court. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice AM Khanwilkar opined so while setting aside a Delhi High Court order in suo motu contempt proceedings against Kuldeep Kapoor and Ashok Kumar. In a brief order, the bench also noted that no proper notice under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, had been given to the alleged contemnor. “We find that the behaviour of the appellants was not contemptuous,” the bench said. In the instant case, the plaintiff was accused of tampering with documents he produced along with the plaint. The court initiated contempt proceedings against him for refusing to answers the questions put to him. The Delhi High Court had sentenced Kuldeep Kumar and Ashok Kumar to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months...

The Supreme Court on Monday termed a High Court order which convicted a person for civil contempt, as “deplorable”. A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice L. Nageswara Rao also observed that it would not be fair on the part of a court to give a direction to do something which is impossible and if a person has been asked to do something which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held guilty of contempt. In 1985, Gyani Chand, on behalf of his mother had applied for return of some documents which were submitted before the court. Those documents were returned to him on an undertaking to the court that the said documents would be produced by him as and when the same would be required by the court. He transferred these documents to his mother. In 2001, these documents were required in connection with an interim application. Gyani Chand submitted before the court that he had already handed over the said documents to his mother...