Disposed

Sicom Limited v. Co-Nick Alloys (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2012CONP/91/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard a Contempt Petition where the respondent wilfully breached an order in an original defamation suit by repeating defamatory allegations. Noting the respondent's advanced age and unconditional apology, the Court accepted the apology but warned of imprisonment for repeat offences.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; unconditional apology accepted with warning for repeat offence; show cause notice discharged.

Sicom Limited Vs Co-Nick Alloys (India) Ltd. and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 29.conp-91-10

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

jmi

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2010

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO. 432 OF 2008.

¶8

SICOM Limited. ..Petitioner.

¶9

vs.

¶10

Co-Nick Alloys (India) Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Tipnis, i/b. Consulta Juris, for Petitioner. Mr. Sheikh Jabbar, a/w. Bhrat L. Gandhi, i/b. N.N. Vaishnawa & Co., for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 20TH JANUARY 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The above Suit was instituted by the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (SICOM) against the Defendants for defamation. The Petitioner Company had claimed damages on the ground that the Defendants caused to be published certain material annexed at Exhibits A, B, C and D to the Plaint, which was defamatory. The Notice of Motion seeking interim reliefs was disposed of, by an order dated 12^th February 2008 in the following terms.

¶15

“ Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants has stated on instructions that the Defendants have no intention to and shall not in any manner publish or republish the articles listed at Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ to the Plaint or the contents thereof or anything similar thereto. The statement is accepted. In the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid assurance, the Notice of Motion shall stand disposed of.”

¶16

2 29.conp-91-10

¶17

Thereafter, the Suit had appeared on board before the Learned Single Judge on 14^th February 2008. At that time, the Defendants through their Counsel expressed their genuine regret and informed the Court that they shall not in any manner publish or republish articles annexed at Exhibits A, B and C to the Plaint or anything similar thereto. In view thereof, by consent, a Decree in terms of the statement was passed and the Plaintiff did not press for damages.

¶18

However, as pointed out in the above Contempt Petition, Respondent No.2 (original Defendant No.3) once again wrote letters to the independent Directors of the Petitioner Company dated 20^th July 2009 and to Sir Callum McCarthy, Chairman of Europe JC Flowers and Company, a shareholder of the Petitioner Company once again contending the defamatory allegations. The Respondent No. 2 has therefore, willfully and deliberately committed contempt of the order passed by this Court dated 14^th February 2008. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court. He submits through his Advocate that he is 81 years old and that he is expressing his genuine regret and unconditional apology for committing breach of the order dated 14^th February 2008. He also submits that he has already written a letter dated 12^th January 2012 to the independent Director of the Petitioner Company as well as to Sir Callum McCarthy (Exhibit A and A-1 to his Affidavit-in-Reply) withdrawing the said letters.

¶19

As stated earlier, Respondent No.2 is guilty of committing willful breach of the order dated 14^th February 2008. However keeping in mind his advanced age and the unconditional apology tendered to this Court and also the letters written by him dated 12^th January 2012 withdrawing his earlier letters dated 20^th July 2009, the unconditional apology tendered by him is accepted. However, he

¶20

3 29.conp-91-10

¶21

is warned that in the event of him repeating the said contemptuous acts, irrespective of his advanced age, he will have to face punishment which may include imprisonment. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. Show Cause Notice also stands discharged.

¶22

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Sicom Limited v. Co-Nick Alloys (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sicom Limited v. Co-Nick Alloys (India) Ltd. and Anr.

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

Karamshi Rayshi Dedhia Vs Rajendra J.Singh

Leena Pradeep Bhalkia Vs Delux Box Factory and 2 Ors.

Jayesh Navalkar Joshi Vs Shantaram v. Karnik and Ors.

The Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors. Vs Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Mahasangh.

Vishwanath Kadiya Shetty Vs the Collector of Mumbai, (Mumbai S.D. )

M/S Navrang Expots Vs M/S Happy Enterprises