Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Suo Motu (On ... vs Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria (Advocate ... on 26 April, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
CONTEMPT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.15 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SUO MOTU
(ON COURT'S OWN MOTION)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE STATE)
AND
AWDHESH SINGH BHADAURIA (ENROLL
NO.2715/1998), C/O HIGH COURT BAR
ASSOCIATION, GWALIOR R/O B/94, PUSHKAR
COLONY, GWALIOR (M.P.)
........RESPONDENT
(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 14.03.2024
Pronounced on : 26.04.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh
Phadke pronounced the following:
2
ORDER
The present contempt reference arises out of order dated 11.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak on the basis of complaint dated 29.11.2018 filed by one Vinay Bhadauria S/o late Shri Uday Singh Bhadauria, R/o Birlanagar, Gwalior supported by an affidavit wherein the allegations regarding demand of illegal gratification in the name of the Judge were levelled against Advocate Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria who was one time counsel of the complainant's brother Rajesh Singh Bhadauria before this Court in bail application M.Cr.C. No. 39629/2018 (since granted by this Court)
2. As per complaint, counsel Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria made a scurrilous demand of illegal gratification of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant scornfully in the name of High Court Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak. Having considered contents of the said complaint, the judge, prima facie found that a criminal contempt as defined u/s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria as gist of allegation levelled against the Judge of this Court apparently invades sanctity and integrity of the institution. Further, the alleged act of Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria on the face of it appeared to the Judge to scandalize or tends to scandalize or lower or tends to lower his authority and that of the Court and also amounts to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice. Thus, on its own motion, it was directed that the action be taken against Advocate Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria.
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, present contempt reference came to be filed, through Additional Registrar High Court of M.P on 18.12.2018. All the necessary facts whereby the criminal contempt was 3 made out against present respondent were mentioned therein. On 21.12.2018, notices were issued to the proposed contemnor. On 14.01.2019 the contemnor made himself present before this Court in person. On 26.12.2018 respondent-contemnor has filed his reply. In the reply it was submitted by the respondent-contemnor that the brother Rajesh Singh Bhadauria of the complainant is his old client against whom offence under Excise Act in Crime No. 34/2017 was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior in which he had defended him in M.Cr.C. No.20120 of 2017 and this Court was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail and at that time there was some dispute with regard to the professional fees which was agreed to be paid to the present respondent-contemnor. It was further averred in the reply that against the brother of the complainant another Crime vide Crime No. 213/2018 under the Excise Act got registered by Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior wherein one M.Cr.C No. 39629 of 2018 was filed by him. In regard to the aforesaid crime, the matter was pending before JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 2888 of 2018 and in both the matters a sum of Rs.70,000/- was fixed as his professional fees with accused Rajesh Singh Bhadauria and at no point of time there was any discussion regarding the same with the complainant Vinay Singh Bhadauria. It was further submitted that out of Rs.70,000/- only Rs.10,000/- was paid by accused Rajesh Singh Bhadouria to the respondent-contemnor and since Rajesh Singh Bhadouria was put behind bars, the complainant requested the respondent-contemnor to defend his case and requested that as his financial condition is not good and he was unable to pay fees at that time his fees would be paid by his brother as and when he comes out of the jail.
44. The said M.Cr.C. No. 39629 of 2018 was heard and reserved on 14.11.2018 by this Court and, therefore, the respondent-contemnor asked the complainant to pay remaining fees to which on 15.11.2018 the nephew of accused Rajesh Singh Bhadauria, Ravi Sikarwar came to the office of contemnor and requested that as soon as Rajesh Singh Bhadauria would come out of jail, he would pay his fees but looking to the previous experience, the respondent-contemnor told Vinay Singh Bhadauria/complainant through Ravi Sikarwar to bring the fees and take certified copy of the order. It was further submitted that as and when Ravi Sikarwar told the matter to complainant Vinay Singh Bhadauria that he called respondent-contemnor and refused to pay the fees, therefore, the respondent contemnor told him that since it was agreed by his brother Rajesh Singh Bhadauria, he will have to talk with him only.
5. On the very next day i.e. on 16.11.2018, the colleague of respondent-contemnor Umendra Singh Kushwaha applied for certified copy of the bail order which was allowed by this Court and in the Court premises when he asked Vinay Singh Bhadauria/the complainant to make the payment of the remaining fees, he started abusing him. Thus, constrained his colleague reported the matter to Principal Registrar that without paying the fees, the complainant want to get the certified copy and in between the complainant was regularly having talks with some one on phone from where he was instructed to tell Principal Registrar that the Advocate is asking for Rs. 60,000/- in the name of the Judge and upon the said instructions, he told Principal Registrar that the Advocate is demanding the money in the name of the Judge and took the certified copy.
6. It was further averred that since it was Friday and respondent- contemnor was not having any knowledge of aforesaid incident and 5 after he returned home, he had switched off the phone since he was very exhausted, therefore, his colleague could not contact him in the evening and it was only late in the evening he got the information that on the very same day by playing fraud the complainant had taken the certified copy of the order, thus constrained, he wrote a letter to the Chief Justice and marked the copy to the other Judges of High Court at Gwalior Bench and told the plight of the Advocates and demanded for changing the rules of granting certified copies, even he called the complainant Vinay Singh Bhadauria and told him that if he did not make the payment of the fees, then appropriate report would be lodged to the police and it appears that since he was threatened in the name of police, after 14 days he had made the said complaint which is pre-planned.
7. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the ground which were taken for dropping of the contempt proceedings were that prior to taking suo moto cognizance, no notice was issued to him nor statements of his colleagues were recorded, thus, it was prayed that the contempt proceedings be dropped and a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- be imposed upon the complainant. Along with his reply, affidavit of his colleague Advocate Shri Umendra Singh was submitted.
8. On 21.01.2019 affidavit was submitted by the complainant Vinay Bhadauria that junior of contemnor Shri Sachin Rajawat had misbehaved and abused him on 16.11.2018 which could be ascertained from the CCTV footage and there was allegations that the contemnor on mobile has abused the complainant. In view thereof, this Court had directed the Principal Registrar to procure the CCTV footage of 16.11.2018 and also the call details of the mobile phone of respondent- contemnor and mobile phone of complainant. Accordingly, on 30.01.2019 call details were received from Office of Superintendent of 6 Police Cyber Cell along with report of Security Officer of M.P. Bench, Gwalior dated 21.01.2019. On 06.02.2019, the complainant appeared before this Court and prayed to produce CD to substantiate his statements made on affidavit, and this Court permitted the complainant to produce CD along with affidavit. On 26.2.2019 one I.A. No. 1349 of 2019 an application for taking transcript and a CD containing recording of the call between complainant and contemnor, on record, was heard and this Court directed the Principal Registrar to sent the said CD to State Forensic Science Laboratory. In furtherance to the order dated 26.2.2019, CD was sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar from where it was informed by Memo No.97-A/2019 dated 13.03.2019 that for verification of the CD recording, the matter was forwarded to the Joint Director, Regional Science Laboratory, Bhopal from where it was informed that at Bhopal, facility of CD voice identification is only available and no facility for examining of authenticity of CD is available with them and if the authenticity of the CD is to be verified, then the matter will have to be corresponded with Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. In view thereof, Principal Registrar was directed to take steps to get the authenticity of the CD submitted by the complainant to be verified by Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar Gujarat. In pursuance to the order of this Court the CDs were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar Gujarat, from where report dated 2.7.2019 was received. In the report, in clause 10, the result of the examination was disclosed as ''no signs of alteration observed in file 01 REC. MP3, present in Ex.1 and no signs of alteration observed in file 02 REC. MP3 present in Ex. 2'.' On 4.11.2019, this Court directed to take all the interim applications submitted by the parties for consideration at the time of final hearing of the matter.
79. On 18.2.2019 the respondent-contemnor moved an application for conducting high level enquiry against the conspiracy framed against him which was registered as I.A. No. 1386 of 2019. In the said application ground taken for conducting the said enquiry was that since the respondent-contemnor had time and again raised voice against the corrupt system and practices prevalent in the society and had fought several cases against dacoits, mafias, white collared politicians and those persons many times had tried to pressurize the respondent- contemnor but every time they have failed in their attempt, but at this time, at the instance one retired High Court Judge who had a grudge with the respondent-contemnor hatched a conspiracy, which got successful. Further, in the application respondent contemnor had even named the said retired High Court Judge as Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma and had levelled allegations against him in conspiring with accused Rajesh Singh Bhadauria and complainant Vinay Singh Bhadauria. Against the retired judge, allegations with regard to receiving illegal gratification from liquor mafia and other criminals were levelled and certain advocates' names have also been mentioned therein.
10. Apart from that in the application allegations have been leveled against Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma with regard to his moral integrity and the respondent-contemnor even had tried to involve his name with one lady who had lodged complaint against one businessman, who was the client of present respondent-contemnor and under the influence of such lady Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma had harassed his client and in the matter of the said client the respondent-contemnor had made complaint against Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma to Chief Justice of India. Thus, in the said application, the respondent-contemnor had made Hon'ble Shri Justice 8 Anil Kumar Sharma as the kingpin and the person responsible for the said conspiracy. Along with the said application, copies of certain orders passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma and the complaint made against him were also filed and it was prayed that the contempt proceeding be dropped and a CBI enquiry or high level judicial enquiry be conducted in the matter and again it was prayed that cost of Rs.10,00,000/- be imposed upon the complainant.
11. Again, on 22.4.2019, one application No.2991 of 2019 was filed by respondent-contemnor wherein the respondent contemnor tried to bring on record the criminal antecedents of the complainant. In the meanwhile, on 30.4.2019 one application being I.A. No. 3326 of 2019 was filed on behalf of the complainant wherein it was prayed that officials of Police Station, Hazeera may be directed to investigate Crime No.133 of 2019 properly as it was lodged at the instance of respondent- contemnor. On 13.8.2019 one I.A. No. 6266 of 2019 was filed by the respondent-contemnor wherein it was prayed that an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the CD produced by the complainant is not in conformity with the said section, therefore, the same be rejected. Again on 25.11.2022 an application was preferred by the respondent-contemnor for taking certain photographs and copies of the order on record depicting the relation of Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Sharma with a lady as mentioned in I.A. No. 1386 of 2019.
12. The facts which has come up on record reveals that the respondent-contemnor by way of certain applications want to divulge the focus of the entire incident from the demand made by him of illegal gratification in the name of Judge to a conspiracy by a retired High Court Judge and had made every efforts to malign his reputation when admittedly the said contempt reference was not at his instance nor he 9 was in any way party to the proceedings. This shows that by any means the respondent-contemnor wants to get the contempt proceedings dropped against him. Till the date of final hearing, no attempt was made by the respondent contemnor to seek any apology either oral or written but had tried to rebut the allegations levelled against him that too by involving a third person and bringing an angle of conspiracy. This Court is not trying a suit or a criminal case but is hearing a criminal contempt reference drawn at the instance of the Judge of this Court. It was required from respondent-contemnor to have stuck to the allegations and to rebut the same but instead of rebutting the allegations levelled against him, he has stretched the limits of his defence too far which this Court does not appreciate.
13. This Court has in every other case observed that to justify a stand, certain stories are being cooked up which has nothing to do with the real controversy and the reputation of certain third person is put to stake and are maligned in the process. In this case also, the respondent-contemnor had done the same thing, according to this Court, there was no need. The respondent-contemnor had tried to have brought an altogether different angle of conspiracy into the matter by leveling allegations against a Judge of this Court. This very conduct of the respondent- contemnor had compelled this Court to take a stern view and hold that in actuality the respondent-contemnor must have done the act, as alleged against him by the complainant which virtually amounts to an attempt to scandalize the image of a Judge of this Court and functioning of this Court. Comments later on made by the respondent-contemnor does not appear to be fair dispassionate criticism of the functionaries, but appears to be couched with intemperate language with use of undesirable expletives, thus, to this Court, it appears to be a deliberate attempt on 10 the part of the respondent to scandalize the image of the Court which clearly falls under the definition of criminal contempt u/s. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
14. Recently Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bhushan in reference to the suo moto contempt petition reported in (2021) 1 SCC 745 has considered the definition of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and has held as under:-
"56. It could thus be seen, that it has been held by this Court, that hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary would amount to scandalizing the Court. It has been held, that any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. This Court further observed, that any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It has been held, that imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the court and would be contempt of the court.....".
15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.C. Saxena (Dr) vs. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India reported in (1996) 5 SCC 216 deprecated the growing tendency to scandalise the court, which by itself constituted 'contempt of court'. The Court observed thus:
"40. Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public 11 confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the court and would be contempt of the court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judge's office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any publication, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of the court."
16. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court and others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 374 has held as under:
"49. Scandalisation of the Court is a species of 12 contempt and may take several forms. A common form is the vilification of the Judge. When proceedings in contempt are taken for such vilification the question which the Court has to ask is whether the vilification is of the Judge as a judge. (See Queen v. Gray), [(1900) 2 QB 36, 40] or it is the vilification of the Judge as an individual. If the latter the Judge is left to his private remedies and the Court has no power to commit for contempt. If the former, the Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, the Court will have also to consider the degree of harm caused as affecting administration of justice and, if it is slight and beneath notice, Courts will not punish for contempt. This salutary practice is adopted by Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of the Judges. That must rest on surer foundations. Judges rely on their conduct itself to be its own vindication.
50. But if the attack on the Judge functioning as a judge substantially affects administration of justice it becomes a public mischief punishable for contempt, and it matters not whether such an attack is based on what a judge is alleged to have done in the exercise of his administrative responsibilities. A judge's functions may be divisible, but his integrity and authority are not divisible in the context of administration of justice. An unwarranted attack on him for corrupt administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack on his adjudicatory function."
17. Under these circumstances, the respondent-contemnor is held guilty of criminal contempt u/s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
18. Heard on the question of punishment.
19. On being asked to address on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the respondent-contemnor who is present in person, he submits that today he has moved an application for seeking 13 unconditional apology of this Court and prays that in view of the said apology, the proceedings may be dropped though in the application the respondent-contemnor has not withdrawn the contentions as raised by him in the reply and the applications, but he only submits that he may be pardoned for his act and in future the same shall not be repeated.
20. The respondent party in person though has submitted I.A. No. 5614 of 2024 and has orally resiled from the contention earlier raised and had tendered his apology but since he has already been held guilty for criminal contempt as defined u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the language which is used in his application and complaint and the allegations leveled against Hon'ble Judges repeatedly despite various warnings having been given to him coupled with the fact it is found that his apology appears just to save the skin, therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Article 215 of the Constitution deems it appropriate to impose punishment upon him. In this regard, reference can be had of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kurle, In re, (2021)13 SCC 616 wherein it is held :
"11. Samaraditya Pal in The Law of Contempt [Pp. 9-10, The Law of Contempt : Contempt of Courts and Legislatures, 5th Edn., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur (2013)] has very succinctly stated the legal position as follows:
"Although the law of contempt is largely governed by the 1971 Act, it is now settled law in India that the High Courts and the Supreme Court derive their jurisdiction and power from Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution. This situation results in giving scope for "judicial self- dealing"."
12. The High Courts also enjoy similar powers like the Supreme Court under Article 215 of the Constitution. The main argument of the alleged contemnors is that notice should have been issued in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and any violation of the Contempt of Courts Act would vitiate the entire proceedings. We do not accept this argument. In view of the fact that the power to punish for contempt of itself is a constitutional power vested in this Court, such power cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment."
1421. In Re : Perry Kansagra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1516), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"24. It is now well settled that the power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act. In Pallav Sheth vs Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 549, this Court held that:--
"30. There can be no doubt that both this Court and High Courts are courts of record and the Constitution has given them the powers to punish for contempt. The decisions of this Court clearly show that this power cannot be abrogated or stultified. But if the power under Article 129 and Article 215 is absolute, can there by any legislation indicating the manner and to the extent that the power can be exercised? If there is any provision of the law which stultifies or abrogates the power under Article 129 and/or Article 215, there can be little doubt that such law would not be regarded as having been validly enacted. It, however, appears to us that providing for the quantum of punishment or what may or may not be regarded as acts of contempt or even providing for a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for contempt cannot be taken to be a provision which abrogates or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 or Article 215 of the Constitution."
25. The above said principle is followed in Re :
Vijay Kurle (supra), where this Court reiterated the above referred principle and held as under:--
"38. The aforesaid finding clearly indicates that the Court held that any law which stultifies or abrogates the power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution or of the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution, could not be said to be validly enacted. It however, went on to hold that providing the quantum of punishment or a period of limitation would not mean that the powers of the Court under Article 129 have been stultified or abrogated. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of this judgment but it is clear that this judgment only dealt with the issue whether the Parliament could fix a period of limitation to initiate the proceedings under the Act. Without commenting one way or the other on Pallav Seth's case (supra) it is clear that the same has not dealt with the powers of this Court to issue suo motu notice of contempt.
39. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the powers of the Supreme Court to initiate contempt are not in any manner limited by the provisions of the Act. This Court is vested with the 15 constitutional powers to deal with the contempt. Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated and this procedure provides that there are three ways of initiating a contempt - (i) suo motu (ii) on the motion by the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General and (iii) on the basis of a petition filed by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General. As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt. This is not only clear from the provisions of the Act but also clear from the Rules laid down by this Court."
22. A Division Bench of Jabalpur Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.11 of 2012 (Mukesh Kumar Agrawal vs. Shri Gulab Kothari, Managing Director cum Owner, Patrika Daily Newspaper and others) by order dated 17.08.2023 has passed the following order:-
"(i) The respondents No.2 and 3 shall pay the fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- each) before the Registry of this Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.
(ii) The respondents No.2 and 3 shall deposit the cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- each) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court Employees Association, Jabalpur (S.B. A/c No.519302010000235, Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Jabalpur) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
23. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14678 of 2023 (Dhananjay Pratap Singh and another vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal).
24. For all the aforementioned reasons and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the 16 considered view that imposing fine and cost on the respondent Contemnor instead of sending him to jail would be a just and appropriate punishment. Hence, we pass the following orders:-
(i) Respondent-contemnor is held guilty of committing a criminal contempt as defined u/s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;
(ii) The respondent-contemnor shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
before the Registry of this Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.
(iii) The respondent-contemnor shall pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs) with the M.P. High Court Bar Association, Gwalior (SB A/c No.326802012000285, IFSC CODE: UBIN0563561, Union Bank of India, Branch High Court, Gwalior) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25. The contempt petition (criminal) is hereby disposed off. All the aforementioned I.As also stand disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2024.05.08 10:53:14 +05'30'