Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 cri. contempt petition no. 1.2014 =JUDGMENT.29.01.doc this Court, by order dated 6 th February 2013, was pleased to admit the said Criminal Application and grant ad-interim relief.

b] Respondent No.1 filed an application on 13 th April 2013 in the said Criminal Application No. 30 of 2013 to vacate the said ad-interim relief. In the said application, it is alleged that, the petitioner made scandalous allegations against the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. Likewise, in the written submissions filed in the said application on 29 th April 2013 by respondent Nos.1 and 2, again allegedly attributed motives to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court for passing orders in favour of the petitioner. Thirdly, respondent Nos.1 and 2, in connection with the another Contempt Petition No.334 of 2012 and Contempt Petition No.287 of 2013, in CLB Company Petition No.10 of 2010, between the same parties, submitted an application to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Bombay High Court and therein made allegations against the learned Single Judge, who had passed the order of ad-interim relief in the aforesaid Criminal Application No. 30 of 2013, and sought transfer of the said Contempt Petition from the Court presided over by the said learned Single Judge. Lastly, 4 cri. contempt petition no. 1.2014 =JUDGMENT.29.01.doc it is stated that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not even spared the Advocates who represented the petitioner and its office bearers and made reckless and scandalous allegations against them by addressing false and frivolous communication to various authorities including the Bar Council of India, on 1st March 2013.

42 The third submission of the learned Amicus Curiae, however, carries some substance. As regards the statements made in the application, seeking transfer of the Contempt Petition No. 344 of 2012 and 287 of 2013 in CLB Company Petition No. 10 of 2010, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that mere assertion that a Judge has passed a wrong and illegal order and, therefore, the litigant has no trust in the said learned Judge does not amount to criminal contempt.

27 cri. contempt petition no. 1.2014 =JUDGMENT.29.01.doc 43 The learned senior counsel Shri Vineet Naik for the petitioner joined the issue by putting forth a submission that such baseless allegations have the tendency to interfere with the due course of justice. Drawing attention to the order dated 11th October 2013 passed in the said Contempt Petitions, whereby the learned Judge directed, that in view of the said letter of respondent No.1, the matter be removed from the board of the Court over which he presides. It was urged that the baseless allegations in the application for transfer did, in fact, interfere with due course of justice.

44 We find that the aforesaid submission on behalf of the petitioner, in face of the facts on record, does not merit acceptance. We have perused the transfer application dated 9th September 2013. Apart from the assertion that as the learned Judge passed a wrong and illegal order and, therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no trust in the learned Judge, there is no further accusatory assertion therein. 45 As a proposition of law, it trite that aspersions of a serious nature made against a Judge, even in a transfer petition may amount to contempt. Under the garb of transfer petition, a party cannot be 28 cri. contempt petition no. 1.2014 =JUDGMENT.29.01.doc permitted to launch a scurrilous attack against, and impute improper motives to, a Judge. Nonetheless, the transfer applications, by their very nature, stand on a different footing. A little more latitude is required to be given while construing a case of contempt based on assertions in a transfer application.