Supreme Court - Daily Orders
K.Alfred vs Ramesh Iyer on 18 November, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sudhanshu Dhulia
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4417/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-02-2019
in CONTP No. 235/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Madras)
K.ALFRED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAMESH IYER & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.76490/2019-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE
IN PERSON[O/R FOR DIRECTION] )
Date : 18-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mohit kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
By way of this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order dated 22.02.2019, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 235/2019, whereby the High Court declined to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction on the allegations of the petitioner that the respondents had disobeyed Signature Not Verified and flouted the order passed by the 23 rd Metropolitan Magistrate Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2022.11.19 14:22:48 IST Reason: Court, Saidapet in Crl.M.P. No. 6632/2007 on 03.12.2007. In 1 essence, the case of the petitioner had been that the said order was passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for interim custody of the vehicle, bearing registration No. TN-09-AR-4650; and despite such order of the learned Magistrate, the vehicle was not returned and on the other hand, the first respondent instituted arbitral proceedings, which resulted in an ex parte award and to execute the same, Execution Petition had also been filed in the Court of 9th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai who passed the order in the Execution Petition. According to the petitioner, all such acts were of defiance of the said order dated 03.12.2007.
The High Court took note of the fact that the referred order dated 03.12.2007 was only of interim custody under Section 451, Cr.P.C. but there had been arbitral award of which, execution has been levied and so long the award was subsisting, it was always open for the concerned financer to execute the same. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the contempt petition.
In this matter, at the initial stage, on 17.09.2019, this Court took note of the submissions of the petitioner and other facts including the balance payable by the petitioner; the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum; and the higher rate of interest in the arbitral proceedings and, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the City Civil Court in EP No. 245/2017.
Thereafter, on 18.11.2019, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were granted time to file affidavit in reply but considering the facts and circumstances, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were deleted from the array 2 of parties. It is noticed that the said respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were respectively the Sole Arbitrator and the said 9 th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court.
The contesting respondents having filed their counter affidavit and the petitioner also having filed additional documents, we have proceeded to examine if a case for grant of special leave to appeal is made out.
However, after noticing that the petitioner appearing in- person is largely referring to several irrelevant facts and factors, we offered to the petitioner if services of a legal aid lawyer be requested to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, which the petitioner declined.
The petitioner appearing in-person, instead of answering the queries of the Court on the subject-matter of this petition, has unnecessarily referred to irrelevant and absolutely unconcerned things, for which he was repeatedly, at least five times, asked to concentrate on the merits of the case but he would refer only to the irrelevant and unconnected facts and factors, which have got nothing to do with the subject-matter like the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 25286/2014. Thereafter, he has again submitted that it had been the conduct of his wife that led to the criminal case. The petitioner has attempted to submit other facts relating to the criminal case which we find to be of no relevance. After we have repeatedly queried the petitioner, he has referred to the submission that there is no payment due.
We have also been informed that the main cases, bearing First 3 Appeal Nos. 91,92 and 93 of 2020, are now pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi after having been transferred from Chennai; and are posted for consideration on 18.01.2023.
We have still examined the matter on its merits to find if there be any case for consideration, particularly against the impugned order dated 22.02.2019, whereby the High Court has declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction in the matter after thorough consideration of all the relevant facts. In our view, the High Court, in consideration of all the factual aspects of the matter, has arrived at a conclusion that no case for contempt is made out.
We find no error in the order so passed by the High Court so as to consider interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Before closing the matter, we are impelled to observe that the petitioner has made several such submissions which go beyond subject-matter of the petition and also tend to cross the discipline of the Court. However, we have excused the petitioner, looking to the fact that he is involved in this litigation for long and the other parallel litigations are pending. However, we put the petitioner to warning that any other attempt on his part of a similar nature may be visited with serious consequences. We say no more for the present.
Even though we have made aforesaid comments and have dismissed this petition, we still make it clear that the matters pending before the State Commission shall be examined on their own merits 4 without being influenced by the comments occurring in this order. This petition seeking special leave to appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with the observations foregoing.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
5