Partly allowed

Bharat Bhushan v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2007APP/129/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partly allowed. The High Court found the appellant guilty of civil contempt for violating a court order through the company he was a director of. Afier finding the imprisonment sentence excessive for an ex-employee, the court quashed the imprisonment, upheld the fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and ordered payment within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order of simple imprisonment for three months is set aside. The order imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is maintained. A period of eight weeks is fixed for depositing the fine.

IN	THE ORDINARY	HIGH	COURT OF ORIGINAL	JUDICATURE CIVIL	AT BOMBAY JURISDICTION
		APPEAL	NO.129		OF 2002
			IN
	CONT	EMPT	PETITION	NO.1	OF 1998
			IN
	NOTICE	O	F MOTION	NO.395	OF 1997
			IN
		SUIT	NO.456		OF 1997
Bharat Bhushan				...App	ellant
	v/s
Rank Enterprises	Ltd. and ors.			...Res	pondents
Mr	Rajesh		Gehani	for	Appellant.
Mr P.C.	Mankad	i/b	Mr P.D.	Kadam	for Respondents.
CORAM DATE	: D.K.	DE :	SHMUKH AND 11TH	J.H. OCTO	BHATIA JJ. BER 2007.

THE
ORDINARY

HIGH

COURT
OF

ORIGINAL

JUDICATURE
CIVIL

AT
BOMBAY
JURISDICTION

APPEAL

NO.129

OF
2002

CONT

EMPT

PETITION

NO.1

OF
1998

NOTICE

F
MOTION

NO.395

OF
1997

SUIT

NO.456

OF
1997

Bharat Bhushan

...App

ellant

v/s

Rank Enterprises

Ltd. and ors.

...Res

pondents

Rajesh

Gehani

for

Appellant.

Mr
P.C.

Mankad

i/b

Mr
P.D.

Kadam

for
Respondents.

CORAM
DATE

:
D.K.

DE
:

SHMUKH
AND
11TH

J.H.
OCTO

BHATIA
JJ.
BER
2007.

1.		This appeal	is directed against the order
passed	by	the learned	Single Judge of this Court	dated
8th	October	2001 in	contempt petition No.1 of 1998.	By
that	order,	amongst	others, the present appellant	has
been	held	guilty for	committing civil contempt of	this
Court	and	he has	been sentenced to undergo	simple
imprisonme	nt	for a perio	d of three months and also	pay
fine	of	Rs.2,000/-.	The contempt petition was	filed
alleging	disobed	ience of	the order passed by the	learned
Single	Judge	of this	Court dated 31st July 1997.	The
facts	in	brief are that	by order dated 31st July	1997,
the	defendan	t No.1 -	Company by name Aravali Tubes	Ltd.
was	directed	to deposi	t in Court the price of	twelve
containers.		The act	of disobedience was that though	by
that	order	dated 31st	July 1997 the defendant No.1	-
Company	was	directed	to deposit the price of	twelve
containers	or	furnish	bank guarantee in the amount	of
price	of	twelve contain	ers, it was not done The	present
appellant	-	Bharat	Bhushan was joined as res	pondent
No.4.	In	the petitio	n it is stated that he was	a
Director	of	the defendant	No.1 - company. It was	also
stated	that	pursuant	to the order passed in	appeal
against	ad-int	erim order	passed in notice of	motion

This appeal

is directed against the order

passed

the
learned

Single
Judge
of
this
Court

dated

8th

October

2001
in

contempt
petition
No.1
of
1998.

that

order,

amongst

others,
the
present
appellant

has

been

held

guilty
for

committing
civil
contempt
of

this

Court

and

he
has

been
sentenced
to
undergo

simple

imprisonme

for
a
perio

d
of
three
months
and
also

pay

fine

Rs.2,000/-.

The
contempt
petition
was

filed

alleging

disobed

ience
of

the
order
passed
by
the

learned

Single

Judge

of
this

Court
dated
31st
July
1997.

The

facts

brief
are
that

by
order
dated
31st
July

1997,

the

defendan

t
No.1
-

Company
by
name
Aravali
Tubes

Ltd.

was

directed

to
deposi

t
in
Court
the
price
of

twelve

containers.

The
act

of
disobedience
was
that
though

that

order

dated
31st

July
1997
the
defendant
No.1

Company

was

directed

to
deposit
the
price
of

twelve

containers

furnish

bank
guarantee
in
the
amount

price

twelve
contain

ers,
it
was
not
done
The

present

appellant

Bharat

Bhushan
was
joined
as
res

pondent

No.4.

the
petitio

n
it
is
stated
that
he
was

Director

the
defendant

No.1
-
company.
It
was

also

stated

that

pursuant

to
the
order
passed
in

appeal

against

ad-int

erim
order

passed
in
notice
of

motion

taken	out by the plaintiffs, the	pre	sent appellant	had
given	an undertaking as directed	by	the Division	Bench.
When	notice of contempt petition	was	issued to	the
appellant,	it appears he did not	disput	e that he	was
Director	of the defendant No.1 -	Comp	any at the	relevant
time.	He however claims that	he w	as acting under	the
direction	of the respondent No.6	who	according to	him
was	Chairman and Managing Director	of	Aravali Group	of
companies.	The explanation was	not	accepted by	the
learned	Single Judge and the	learned	Single Judge	found
that	the present appellant is	guilty	of having	wilfully
violated	the order made by the le	arned	Single Judge.	We
have	heard learned counsel for bo	th the	sides. We	find
that	there was a clear allegation	made	in the	contempt
petition	that the present appellan	t w	as Director of	the
defendant	No.1 - Company. Obv	iously	therefore, he	was
bound	by the order made by the	Court.	There is al	so no
dispute	that the order has not be	en co	mplied with by	the
defendant	No.1 - company. We als	o do	not find a	clear
explanation	given in the affidavits	filed	on behalf	of
the	present appellant as to what	steps	he had taken	to
comply	with the order passed by	the	Court as a	Director
of t	he defendant No.1 - Company.	In	our opinion, as	a
Director	of the defendant No.1 -	Com	pany, the order	was
binding	on the present appellant	and	as admittedly	he
was	aware of that order he was	under	a duty to	take
steps	to comply with the order	and	therefore, we do	not

taken

out
by
the
plaintiffs,
the

pre

sent
appellant

had

given

an
undertaking
as
directed

the
Division

Bench.

When

notice
of
contempt
petition

was

issued
to

the

appellant,

it
appears
he
did
not

disput

e
that
he

was

Director

of
the
defendant
No.1
-

Comp

any
at
the

relevant

time.

He
however
claims
that

he
w

as
acting
under

the

direction

of
the
respondent
No.6

who

according
to

him

was

Chairman
and
Managing
Director

Aravali
Group

companies.

The
explanation
was

not

accepted
by

the

learned

Single
Judge
and
the

learned

Single
Judge

found

that

the
present
appellant
is

guilty

of
having

wilfully

violated

the
order
made
by
the
le

arned

Single
Judge.

have

heard
learned
counsel
for
bo

th
the

sides.
We

find

that

there
was
a
clear
allegation

made

in
the

contempt

petition

that
the
present
appellan

t
w

as
Director
of

the

defendant

No.1
-
Company.
Obv

iously

therefore,
he

was

bound

by
the
order
made
by
the

Court.

There
is
al

so
no

dispute

that
the
order
has
not
be

en
co

mplied
with
by

the

defendant

No.1
-
company.
We
als

o
do

not
find
a

clear

explanation

given
in
the
affidavits

filed

on
behalf

the

present
appellant
as
to
what

steps

he
had
taken

comply

with
the
order
passed
by

the

Court
as
a

Director

of
t

he
defendant
No.1
-
Company.

our
opinion,
as

Director

of
the
defendant
No.1
-

Com

pany,
the
order

was

binding

on
the
present
appellant

and

as
admittedly

was

aware
of
that
order
he
was

under

a
duty
to

take

steps

to
comply
with
the
order

and

therefore,
we
do

not

find	any	fault	with the finding recorded	by the	learned
Single	Judge	that	he is guilty of having	committed	civil
contempt	of	this	Court. However, we find	substance	in
the	submiss	ion	made on behalf of the ap	pellant tha	t the
order	directing	him	to undergo simple impris	onment f	or a
period	of	three	months should be set	aside	because
though	he	was	described as a Director of	the	defendant
No.1	- Co	mpany,	in fact he was employee of	the	Company
and t	hat	subseque	ntly he has ceased to	be in	the
employmen	t of	the	defendant No.1 - Company	and	presently
he is	worki	ng	somewhere else. Considering	that law	laid
down	by the	Su	preme Court in relation to	the exerci	se of
contempt	juris	diction	and the power of the	Court	to
punish,	in	our	opinion, it will not be in	the	interest
of	justice	to	maintain the order sentencin	g the	present
appellant	to	un	dergo simple imprisonment.	In	our
opinion,	inter	est	of justice would be	subserved	by
maintaining		the	finding that the appellant	is guilt	y of
having	comm	itted	contempt of this Court	and	imposing
fine	of	Rs.2,00	0/- on him. The appeal	therefore	partly
succeeds	and	is	allowed, the order of the	learned	Single
Judge	to	und	ergo simple imprisonment for a	period	of
three	months	is	set aside, the rest of the	order	is

find

any

fault

with
the
finding
recorded

by
the

learned

Single

Judge

that

he
is
guilty
of
having

committed

civil

contempt

this

Court.
However,
we
find

substance

the

submiss

ion

made
on
behalf
of
the
ap

pellant
tha

t
the

order

directing

him

to
undergo
simple
impris

onment
f

or
a

period

three

months
should
be
set

aside

because

though

was

described
as
a
Director
of

the

defendant

No.1

-
Co

mpany,

in
fact
he
was
employee
of

the

Company

and
t

hat

subseque

ntly
he
has
ceased
to

be
in

the

employmen

t
of

the

defendant
No.1
-
Company

and

presently

he
is

worki

somewhere
else.
Considering

that
law

laid

down

by
the

preme
Court
in
relation
to

the
exerci

se
of

contempt

juris

diction

and
the
power
of
the

Court

punish,

our

opinion,
it
will
not
be
in

the

interest

justice

maintain
the
order
sentencin

g
the

present

appellant

dergo
simple
imprisonment.

our

opinion,

inter

est

of
justice
would
be

subserved

maintaining

the

finding
that
the
appellant

is
guilt

y
of

having

comm

itted

contempt
of
this
Court

and

imposing

fine

Rs.2,00

0/-
on
him.
The
appeal

therefore

partly

succeeds

and

allowed,
the
order
of
the

learned

Single

Judge

und

ergo
simple
imprisonment
for
a

period

three

months

set
aside,
the
rest
of
the

order

Bharat Bhushan v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan v. Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faircot S.A. Vs Tata Steel Ltd.

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Mr.Shabab Ahmed and Ors.

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commiss Ion

Allwyn Gonsalves Vs Cardinal Simon Pimenta and Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Ragini Narayan Vs Minnie Narayan