Calcutta High Court
Arvind Kumar Newar And Anr vs Harsh Vardhan Lodha on 11 March, 2021
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OD-4
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC/38/2020
With
APO 92/2020
ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR AND ANR.
Versus
HARSH VARDHAN LODHA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 11th March, 2021
(Via Video Conference)
Appearance:-
Mr. S.K. Kapur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hirak Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K V Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Malay Seal, Adv.
Mr. Prasun Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Suchismita Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Debdutta Sen, Adv.
Mr. Akash Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv.
...for petitioner
Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kr. Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Terivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv.
2
Mr. Soumya Roychowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv.
Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Adv.
Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Iram Hassan, Adv.
Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Roychowdhury, Adv.
...for the respondent
Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Yash Vardhan Deora, Adv.
Ms. Asmita Raychaudhuri, Adv.
....for Majority APL Committee.
The Court: Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Harsh Vardhan Lodha, whom we will hereinafter refer as HVL, raised, what he calls is a preliminary objection to CC/38/2020. He submits that the pleadings in the application do not disclose any allegation as to contempt, which can be taken cognizance of in terms of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He states that no contumacious activity which merits consideration in a contempt of court application has been delineated in the application. To buttress the argument, he refers to a Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulati & Anr. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 530.
Per contra, Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CC/38/2020, argued that the objections filed by HVL to this contempt of court application does not reflect any preliminary objection and no plea as against its maintainability has been taken though, in the ultimate analysis, whether the Court will take cognizance 3 of a particular activity is one that will fall under the Contempt of Courts Act, is a matter which will be decided after considering the contents and scope of the order on the basis of which the contempt of court case is filed and also the facts and law having a bearing on the issue as to whether any contempt in law is made out.
At the outset, we have noticed that Chhotu Ram opens out by Their Lordships stating as to what is the quality and standard of proof expected in contempt of court matter and as to on whom the burden to prove the alleged contempt or purging of contempt lies. Looking at the facts of the case, it can be seen that what was before Their Lordships was an appeal which dealt with the issue as to whether there was contempt committed by the alleged contemnor. The High Court had issued a direction which, according to the petitioner in that case, was essentially a direction to promote him in service. The Supreme Court concluded that the contents of that judgment was not one to that effect and the alleged contemnor and the government were within their power and authority to have considered the opinion of the officer concerned and had rejected his claim for promotion as per an order which contains the reasons for such decision. It was, therefore, that the said decision of the employer government was taken on board and resultantly, it was held that no contempt was made out. We do not see that the said decision has any application to the facts of the case in hand.
4
Reverting to the contents of CC/38/2020, paragraph 43 of that application specifically enumerates the various acts which, according to the petitioner, are contumacious and have been committed by HVL. In the paragraphs preceding paragraph 43, particularly paragraph 33 to 38, various acts of commissions and omissions have been pleaded, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner has derived and placed on record through paragraph 43. With such pleadings on board, we do not think that there is any substance whatsoever in the preliminary objections raised on behalf of HVL.
Resultantly, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of HVL to CC/38/2020 are overruled. All other issues are left open and the matter be proceeded with for hearing on merits.
(THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ.) (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) SN/R.Bhar