Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The facts in brief are that in a petition preferred by the petitioner [C.M. (Main) No. 406/93] on 28.10.1993, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents therein. It is alleged that the said notice was taken and tendered to the respondents on 29.10.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. Respondent No. 1 after reading the notice not only abused the petitioner and the process server, but also hurled abuses against the Court. Offensive, abusive and derogatory language was used by respondent No. 1 and he refused to receive the notice. For this alleged act on the part of the respondent, the petitioner on 1.11.1993 filed this petition praying for initiating proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act and to punish them in accordance with law for the alleged contempt, alleged to have been committed by them.

5. In response to the show cause notice, respondent No. 1 while denying the alleged incident and narrating the background of the suit filed by the petitioner against the club and proceedings therein stated that on 29.10.1993 after 5.45 p.m. soon after he had finished meeting the representatives of Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, a person in civil attire was brought to him, who asked him to sign a paper and take notice of some documents filed by the petitioner in the High Court. On going through the papers, it was noticed by him that the text thereof was similar to the papers which the petitioner had filed before the Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit and, therefore, he was bit surprised and perplexed that how two similar cases could be filed in two different Courts by the same person. As such, respondent No.1 states that he asked his Secretary, who was also then present in the Committee room to get in touch with the Lawyer, who advised him to accept the papers. The person who had brought the notice had been requested to wait till he had consulted the lawyer. During the short period, when respondent No.1 contacted the Lawyer, the man had quietly disappeared with the papers. Thus, respondent No.1 has denied having declined to accept the notice or having uttered the alleged offensive language. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also denied having used the alleged offensive language.

9. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that High Court being the Court of Record is possessed of inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of itself and there is no restriction on its power. Such power cannot be circumscribed or curtailed by any of the statutory provisions like Section 20 of the Act. In other words, according to him, the power to punish for contempt, being inherent in a Court of record, no act of Parliament can take away that inherent jurisdiction and thus the period of limitation would not come in the way and this Court will be within its right to punish the respondents, who have committed gross contempt by uttering offensive language.