Dismissed

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff v. Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2006CRCP/1/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a Criminal Contempt Petition and a Writ Petition challenging the service of a Chamber Summons order in a civil suit. The court held that no criminal contempt occurred as the responsibility lay with the party to inquire about the order rather than the plaintiffs or the Court. Disputes regarding the grant of amendments were directed to be decided during the pending appeal agains

What did the court decide?

Petitioner in both the Criminal Contempt Petition and Writ Petition dismissed with no orders.

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff Vs Mehroo Meherji Vakil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 O.O.C.J.

¶3

Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 of 2006

¶4

 Thrity Sam Shroff. .. .. Petitioner
 (Org.Deft.No.8-a)
 v/s.

¶5

 Mehroo Meherji Vakil & ors. .. Respondents

¶6

 Mr.Rustom Bhagalia i/by Mr.Vijay Jagtap for
 petitioner.

¶7

 Mr.H.J.Thakkar, Senior Advocate with
 Mr.V.H.Thakkar with Mrs.Meharji i/by Gagrats for
 respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

 Mr.Robin Jaisinghani for respondent No.4.
 -----

¶9

 W I T H

¶10

Writ Petition No.1694 of 2006

¶11

 Thrity Sam Shroff. .. .. Petitioner
 V/s.

¶12

 The State of Maharashtra &

¶13

 ors. .. .. Respondents

¶14

 Mr.Rustom Bhagalia for petitioner.

¶15

 Mr.H.J.Thakkar, Senior Advocate with
 Mr.V.H.Thakkar with Mrs.Meharji i/by Gagrats for
 respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶16

 Mr.Robin Jaisinghani for respondent No.6.

¶17

 ----

¶18

CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶19

DATED : 4th October 2006

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶22

-2-

¶23

 2. The petitioner in both these Petitions was
 defendant No.8-a in Suit No.339 of 1991 which was
 filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to Criminal
 Contempt Petition No.1 of 2006 and who are the
 respondent Nos.3 to 5 in Writ Petition No.1694 of
 2006. That Suit was for eviction of the
 petitioner as well as respondent No.4 to Criminal
 Contempt Petition No.1 of 2006 (and who is
 respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.1694 of 2006).
 That Suit has been subsequently decreed on 5th of
 May 2006. The petitioner herein has filed an
 Appeal bearing No.457 of 2006 which has been since
 admitted.

¶24

 3. It so transpired that during the course of
 the Suit the original plaintiffs wanted certain
 developments subsequent to the filing of the Suit
 to be brought on record. They took out a Chamber
 Summons for that purpose. It is not disputed that
 the Chamber Summons was served on the mother of
 the petitioner who was the original defendant No.8
 on 12th April 1999. The petitioner is claiming
 her rights through the original defendant No.8
 (who has since passed away) and she has been
 subsequently joined as defendant No.8-a.

¶25

 4. The Chamber Summons reached before a

¶26

-3-

¶27

 Single Judge on 2nd December 1999. The learned
 Judge noted that the Chamber Summons had been
 served on the defendants. However, some of them
 were not present before the Court. Having noted
 that the Chamber Summons sought placing subsequent
 events on record, the learned Judge allowed it by
 an order passed on 2nd December 1999. While
 passing this order, however, he permitted the
 defendants, who were not present, to apply to
 recall this order, if they so desire.

¶28

 5. It is not in dispute that the amended
 Plaint was served on defendant No.8 on 28th of
 March 2000 and that the additional Written
 Statement is filed by her on 10th April 2000. It
 is the case of the present petitioner (defendant
 No.8-a) that she came to know about this order
 being passed much later on 18th March 2006. It is
 her contention that not informing her about this
 order amounts to a criminal contempt. It is
 submitted that the petitioner sought to get
 certain documents which were relied upon by the
 original plaintiffs, but the same were not made
 available. The gravamen of this contempt petition
 is basically that the copy of the order was not
 furnished to the petitioner nor the documents
 subsequently. This Criminal Contempt Petition

¶29

-4-

¶30

 No.1 of 2006 is filed on 4th April 2006. The

¶31

 petitioner, however, applied to the learned
 Advocate General by way of abundant caution to
 seek his permission and that permission has been
 subsequently declined by the letter dated 2nd May
 2006 of the learned Advocate General. The
 Advocate General noted in para-2 of his letter
 that the grievance of the petitioner is that she
 was not served with a complete copy of the Chamber
 Summons and that the Chamber Summons was
 subsequently granted on 2nd December 1999. The
 copy of this order dated 2nd December 1999 was
 served on her only on 18th March 2006. The
 learned Advocate General thereafter recorded in
 para-3 that the order of the learned Single Judge
 gives her liberty to apply to recall the order.
 In para-4 of his letter, the learned Advocate
 General noted that she had the notice of the
 amendment and it was for her to inquire and
 ascertain under what order those amendments were
 granted. He, therefore, rejected the application
 of the petitioner. That rejection has led to the
 second Writ Petition bearing No.1694 of 2006.

¶32

 6. Mr.Bhagalia, learned Counsel appearing for
 the petitioner, submitted that this Court ought to
 exercise its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the

¶33

-5-

¶34

 Constitution of India read with the definition of
 criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Now, as far as
 Article 215 is concerned, it notes that the High
 Court is a Court of record and will have all the
 powers of such a Court, including the power to
 punish for contempt of itself. Section 2(c) of
 the Contempt of Courts Act speaks about a
 publication or doing of any act which leads to any
 of the three consequences mentioned therein.
 Section 2(c) reads as follows:-

¶35

 " 2(c) "criminal contempt" means the
 publication (whether by words, spoken or
 written, or by signs, or by visible
 representation, or otherwise) of any
 matter or the doing of any other act
 whatsoever which-

¶36

 (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or
 lowers or tends to lower the authority of,
 any court; or

¶37

 (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to
 interfere with, the due course of any
 judicial proceeding; or

¶38

-6-

¶39

 (iii) interferes or tends to interfere
 with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct,
 the administration of justice in any other

¶40

 manner. "

¶41

 Mr.Bhagalia submits that by not making available
 the copy of the order and the documents sought,
 the due course of judicial proceeding is affected
 and, therefore, this Court ought to take
 cognizance and hold the respondents guilty of
 contempt. In this behalf, he relied upon two
 judgments firstly in the case of Shri Baradakanta
Mishra vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court & anr.
reported in AIR 1974 SC 710 and secondly in Zahira

¶42

H. Sheikh (5) & anr. vs. State of Gujarat &

¶43

ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374. As far as the
 first judgment is concerned, he has drawn our
 attention to paras 35 to 37 thereof wherein the
 Court has laid down as to which publication
 amounts to bringing the Court to ridicule and
 affect the administration of justice. In para-36
 the Court has noted that clause (iii) of Section

¶44

 2(c) is a residuary provision. Ultimately in
 para-37 the Court has observed that all the three
 sub-clauses define contempt in terms of
 obstruction of or interference with the
 administration of justice. As far as the second

¶45

-7-

¶46

 judgment is concerned, Mr.Bhagalia has drawn our
 attention to paragraphs 19, 21, 24 and 30 of the
 judgment to submit that any act which amounts to
 deflect the course of justice by unacceptable
 methods would amount to contempt.

¶47

 7. We have noted the submissions of
 Mr.Bhagalia. Both the cases cited by Mr.Bhagalia
 and the law laid down therein cannot apply to the
 present case. The first case was of a Judicial
 Officer who went on making allegations against the
 courts from time to time and even as observed in

¶48

 para-37 thereof the conduct must amount to
 obstruction of or interference with the

¶49

 administration of justice, which was so held in
 that matter. In Zahira’s case (supra), she went
 on changing her stand from time to time and,
 therefore, the Court held that this was an attempt
 to deflect the course of justice by unacceptable
 methods. In the present case, all that has
 happened is that the original plaintiffs took out

¶50

 a Chamber Summons. That was served on the
 original defendant No.8. Thereafter it was heard
 and allowed by the learned Single Judge. While
 allowing it, by abundant caution, he observed that
 the defendants are not present. They may apply to
 recall the order, if they so desire. Thereafter

¶51

-8-

¶52

 the amended Plaint has been served on the
 defendant and it has been replied by filing the
 additional Written Statement. It was the

¶53

 responsibility of the original defendant No.8 and
 of her Advocate to inquire as to what was the
 order passed. That inquiry is not made and the
 original Plaintiffs are sought to be faulted as if
 it was their responsibility to serve a copy of the
 order on the original defendant No.8. Any such
 expectation only from the plaintiffs, without
 taking appropriate steps by defendant No.8 or the
 Advocate of defendant No.8, cannot lead to
 defendant No.8 to make the allegation of criminal
 contempt on the part of the original plaintiffs or
 their Advocate. Similarly if the original
 defendant No.8 or the present petitioner wanted
 some documents and they were not furnished, it was
 open to the party concerned to apply to the Court
 to get copies thereof. It surely cannot amount to
 any obstruction of or interference with the course
 of justice to require this Court to interfere
 either under Article 215 of the Constitution or
 Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶54

 8. The petitioner has filed her Appeal
 against the decree. If she has any grievance with
 respect to the amendments which were granted and

¶55

-9-

¶56

 on which the original defendant No.8 filed the

¶57

 additional Written Statement, it will be open to
 her to raise grounds in the Appeal and we are told
 that she has already raised those grounds in
 Appeal. They will be looked into as and when the
 Appeal is heard and decided.

¶58

 9. In the circumstances aforesaid, both the
 Criminal Contempt Petition and the Writ Petition
 are dismissed.

¶59

(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)

¶60

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff v. Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff v. Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii. Vs Photophone Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. Vs Late Shri P.R.Kamani L/H Smt.S.P.Kamani

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai,City- Viii,Mumbai, Vs M/S Nivan Holding P.Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur Vs Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt.Ltd.

Miss. T.S. Shroff Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Yashodhan Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner and Anr.