Petitioner sought committal order against respondent for allegedly disobeying an order restricting his role to attorney without authority to address the court. Court held Respondent's actions did not amount to willful disobedience.
Petition for committal dismissed as having no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
conpw 33-2016.doc
1/2
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2016
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha ...Petitioner/Orig.Petitioner vs. Kiran Rasiklal Mehta ...Contemnor/Orig.Resp.No.2
Mr.Arshad Shaikh I/b. Gautam Yadav for Petitioner. Mr.Kiran Rasiklal Mehta, Respondent / Contemnor in person present.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
14 JULY 2016
P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2 The petition seeks an order of committal against the Respondent for having willfully disobeyed an order passed by this court on 21 March 2016. The order, which was by consent of parties, inter alia, clarified that the Respondent herein shall, as of now, be permitted only to act on behalf of Respondent No.1 before the Industrial Court and not appear and address the court as a representative of Respondent No.1. What the order contemplated was that in case the Respondent proposed to appear before the court as a representative of Respondent No.1, claiming a right to appear and address on behalf of Respondent No.1, he ought to file an authority in Form-I and till he does so, he shall be permitted only to act on behalf of Respondent No.1 in his capacity as a constituted attorney. That was the purport of the order. The direction that he shall not be permitted to appear and address the court as a representative without filing authority in Form-I, was really a command to the court not to so permit the Respondent. The Respondent's case in the present petition is that he simply acted on behalf of Respondent No.1 in the complaint and did not appear
conpw 33-2016.doc
2/2
sat
and address the court as a representative. It is essentially for the court to consider whether any particular act of the Respondent amounts to simply acting on behalf of the party or an appearance and address as a representative of the party. In case the court takes an incorrect view of the matter, the opponent, if aggrieved, can certainly bring the matter before an appropriate forum, including this court, but such matter cannot form the subject matter of a contempt petition. It cannot be said that by means of acting as such, the Respondent has willfully disobeyed any order of this court.
3 The petition has, thus, no merit and is according dismissed.
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the contemnor willfully disobeyed the order by merely appearing on behalf of the party or acting as a representative without filing authorization.
If the alleged act amounts to an appearance and address as a representative in violation of court order.
Whether the petition has merit given the interpretation of the order passed by this court.
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha
Kiran Rasiklal Mehta
S.C. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
