Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. D.P. Sharma

Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs D.P. Sharma

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided May 04, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/691633

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/691633
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: May 04, 2004
Case Number: Cont. Cas(C). 18/2004 in W.P. (C). 5219/2003
Subject: Contempt of Court;Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 11, 12 and 14; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Phosphates Ltd.

Advocate Manisha, Adv. for; Arun Khoshla, Adv

Respondent

D.P. Sharma

Advocate Sanjay Jain, Adv. for respondent No. 1 and ; Pawan Upadhya, Adv. for respondent Nos. 2-4

Legal References

Acts: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 11, 12 and 14; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151
Reported In: 2004CriLJ3151; 2004(75)DRJ248

Excerpt

- .....even though he had been wrongly arrayed by the petitioner in the writ petition. in the detailed affidavit, filed by respondent no.1, he has stated that he has highest regards for judicial orders, especially being in the law ministry. further, it is averred in the affidavit that neither the petitioner nor the respondent had informed him during the proceedings that there has been a stay of the proceedings in appeal. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the respondents/contemnor had not been served with copy of the stay order passed. the basis of the petitioner's case for contempt is that union of india's counsel, is also the counsel before the apellate authority and since he was aware of the order, respondent no.1 would have also known of the order. this is an unwarranted inference. as noted earlier, neither the petitioner nor the respondent in the writ petition placed before the appellate authority in the proceedings, the factum of stay. in any case, respondent/contemnor has expressed his profound regret and tendered his apology for the inconvenience caused to the court and states that he is abiding by the order, passed by this court. 5.in view of the foregoing, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings. notice is discharged.

Full Judgment

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 2(b), 11, 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiation of proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for disobedience of the interim order passed by the Court on 19.8.2003, staying proceedings in Appeal No.5/2003. The said interim order continued from time to time. It is stated that notwithstanding the said order, respondent No. 1/contemnor continued with the proceedings despite the knowledge of the stay order.

2. Union of India had been arrayed as the respondent through the Additional Secretary, who happens to be respondent No. 1/contemnor. Counsel for Union of India had appeared and was aware of the proceedings.

3. Notice in the contempt petition was issued and detailed affidavit in reply has been filed. It is stated that the said respondent No.1/contemnor was not at all aware of the stay order passed. It is stated that respondent No.1/contemnor was performing hi function as an Appellate Authority and was not a representative of Union of India, even though he had been wrongly arrayed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the detailed affidavit, filed by respondent No.1, he has stated that he has highest regards for judicial orders, especially being in the Law Ministry. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that neither the petitioner nor the respondent had informed him during the proceedings that there has been a stay of the proceedings in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the respondents/contemnor had not been served with copy of the stay order passed. The basis of the petitioner's case for contempt is that Union of India's counsel, is also the counsel before the Apellate Authority and since he was aware of the order, respondent No.1 would have also known of the order. This is an unwarranted inference. As noted earlier, neither the petitioner nor the respondent in the writ petition placed before the Appellate Authority in the proceedings, the factum of stay. In any case, respondent/contemnor has expressed his profound regret and tendered his apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court and states that he is abiding by the order, passed by this Court.

5.In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings. Notice is discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs D.P. Sharma Same Subject Contempt of Court;Civil Same Judge Manmohan Sarin, J. Acts & Sections Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 11, 12 and 14; Cod...

Contempt of Court;Civil