Dismissed

. v. Shri S. Tiu, the Regional Controller of Mines.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012SMCRC/2/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Sua Moto Criminal Contempt petition concerned the alleged contemnor's withdrawal of no objection during arbitration proceedings. The High Court held the act was an unintentional lapse, bona fide, and without intent to disrespect the court. The申请条件 was accepted, and the contempt proceedings were dropped.

What did the court decide?

Suo Moto Criminal Contempt proceedings are dropped.

. Vs Shri S. Tiu, the Regional Controller of Mines. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2 OF 2012

¶4

….... APPELLANT

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

SHRI S. TIU, THE REGUIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES, HAVING OFFICE AT OPPSITE RTO OFFICE, P.O. FATORDA, 403 601, MARGAO – GOA …..... CONTEMNOR

¶7

Shri C.A. Ferriera, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Respondent/Contemnor.

¶8

CORAM: S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. V. BAKRE, JJ DATE: 8TH OCTOBER, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the alleged contemnor.

¶11

2. The learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao

¶12

who was hearing the Arbitration Applications No. 4/2008 and 6/2008 had previously appeared in Writ Petition no.157/1990 as an advocate

¶13

for one of the parties. The two matters were entirely different. Even so when this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, she

¶14

¶15

adjourned the matter for considering whether she should continue with the said Arbitration applications.

¶16

3 . Thereafter, all the parties to the proceedings gave their no objection, by filing memos to that effect and hence the learned Judge posted the matter for further hearing on 20.07.2012 and on that date even partly heard the final arguments and posted the matter for further arguments on 21.07.2012. On the said date, the learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor withdrew the no objection submitted on 18.07/2012. The learned Judge, therefore, stated that she would take appropriate steps to seek transfer of the said proceedings to any other District Judge.

¶17

4 . Thereafter, the parties filed Transfer Applications Nos.2/2012 and 3/2012 before this Court. By an order dated 29.08.2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said Transfer Applications holding that they do not survive since the District Judge on her own had also moved this Court to seek transfer of the said proceedings.

¶18

The learned Single Judge, however, observed that the action of the alleged contemnor in giving consent to the Presiding

¶19

¶20

Judge for hearing the matter and after she proceeded to hear the final arguments withdrawing the said no objection, without giving any reason, prima facie amounts to interference with the administration of justice and thus, criminal contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the Registry to register a Suo Moto Criminal action for contempt against the alleged contemnor.

¶21

5. The alleged contemnor, has filed an Affidavit-In-Reply, in which at the outset, he tendered unconditional apology for his act saying that the same was unintentional. He further stated that in order to obtain N.O.C from his Superior/Ministry, a communication dated 18.07.2012 was sent to the Controller of Mines, South Zone, Bangalore with a copy to the Chief Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur seeking advice in the matter. It is further alleged that by reply which came by fax, the Controller of Mines, Bangalore, directed that action be taken as per instructions of COM (CCOM), [Controller of Mines, office of the Chief Controller of Mines, Nagpur]. According to the alleged contemnor, he believed that there was no objection given by the above reply and hence furnished the NOC letter which was filed before the District Court on

¶22

¶23

18.07.2012. It is further alleged that subsequently upon receiving a telephone call from Mr. Rajan Sahai, COM (CCOM) office, Nagpur, he came to know that the NOC given by him to the Court was without consent of the Ministry. As such, he was directed to withdraw the same and the NOC was withdrawn on 20.07.2012.

¶24

The contemnor has produced copies of the relevant documents. He has further alleged in his affidavit that there was no intention on his part or on the part of the Indian Bureau of Mines to impede or interfere with the administration of justice. He has stated that he has highest respect for judiciary.

¶25

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

¶26

counsel for the alleged contemnor and the statements made by the alleged contemnor in his affidavit, we are of the view that there was an unintentional lapse on the part of the alleged contemnor in furnishing the NOC letter without sanction from the Ministry. It was, however, bona-fide and without intention to show disrespect to the Court. Indeed there is no grievance against the learned trial Judge and there can be none. The same, in our view is excusable in the facts and circumstances as explained by the alleged contemnor in his affidavit. We are, therefore, accepting the unconditional apology tendered on

¶27

¶28

oath by the alleged contemnor.

¶29

7. In view of the above, the Suo Moto Criminal Contempt

¶30

proceedings are dropped.

¶31

S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.

¶32

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶33

AP/-

. v. Shri S. Tiu, the Regional Controller of Mines.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

. v. Shri S. Tiu, the Regional Controller of Mines.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goa Foundation Vs the North Goa Planning and Development Authority, and 8 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs Goa Cricket Association, Rep. by Shri Prasad Phaterpekar, General Secretary and Anr.

. Vs Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Shri Shailesh Vernekar Vs Canacona Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer