Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 56 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8950-DB Commissioner for Cane Development, has essentially stated that all measures are taken to ensure that there is due compliance and denied any deliberate violation of the writ Court's interim order.

13.4 M/s KPR's representative, a director and its authorized signatory, has filed response in these contempt proceedings on 25.01.2023 contending that with the writ Court's interim order dated 02.02.2022 having merged with the final order dated 28.09.2022, the contempt proceedings cannot continue. M/s KPR without a statement on whether it has procured sugarcane from the Subject Cane Area has asserted that M/s NSL which has not entered into agreement with the sugarcane growers with this area cannot assert any exclusive right to procure sugarcane. In the counter affidavit, there is detailed reference to the law in this regard.

- 95 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8950-DB This Court's conclusion on Question No II

23. The next question for consideration is whether the contempt proceedings in CCC No. 200037/2022 and 200014/2023 must be continued against the representative of M/s KPR and the official respondents. A person accused of being in civil contempt may, as contemplated under the provisions of the Rule 1015 of the Contempt of Court Rules, can file an affidavit to deny such allegation, and the Courts, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the reply, may drop the proceedings and discharge the person, but if the court is satisfied 15 Hearing of Cases and Trial.- (i) The accused may file his reply duly supported by an affidavit on or before the first date of hearing or within such extended time as may be granted by the Court.

23.1 As against continuation of the contempt proceedings, two propositions are strongly relied upon. It is canvassed that if an order is possible of two or more interpretations and therefore ambiguous, and if one of the interpretations is bona fide adhered to, the concerned cannot be held to be in contempt. It is next canvassed that the contempt proceedings cannot be sustained when the action complained is either thoughtless or negligent unlike in cases where there is intentional, calculated, conscious and deliberate action with full knowledge of the consequences that would ensue.