Asha Rani Gupta vs Rajender Kumar & Ors. on 8 May, 2013
Learned senior counsel for the contemnor had submitted that
earlier also before the contemnor had been held guilty he had
tendered an unconditional apology to this Court for his lapse and
after his having been held guilty also he was tendering sincerest
apology and so he should be dealt with leniently in the matter of
punishment. Mr. Bhasin further submitted that the contemnor even
otherwise already stands harshly punished under the law of nature
with the destruction of the dry cleaning machine, which was his
source of livelihood, due to fire which had taken place before that
machine could be removed in compliance of the directions of this
Court from the place where it was installed. Mr. Bhasin also
submitted that in these circumstances it would be too harsh a
I.A. No. 18877/12 in CS(OS) No. 288/12 Page 4 of 10
punishment for the contemnor if he is sent to jail and, therefore,
lesser punishment should be awarded to the contemnor by
imposing fine and also directing him to compensate the plaintiff
due to the damage caused to her property. While pleading for
leniency the learned senior counsel drew my special attention to
one decision dated 29th September, 2005 of this Court in a
contempt matter (being CCP. NO. 16/2001), "Ved Parkash and
Anr. Vs Ashok Mehta and Anr." wherein this Court had after
noticing the conduct of the contemnors of that case made a
reference to the following words of Swami Vivekananda: