AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amar Saran and S.C. Nigam, JJ.—Heard Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
The facts of this case necessary for disposing of this application are that a SLP was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 1997 (Lalit Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Jainpur Traders Corporation Private Limited).
In that case, the grievance of the applicant is that the appliccant was not impleaded as a party and collusively Jaipur Traders, who was the respondent in the civil appeal and the appellants Lalit Kumar Jain and Raj Kumar Poddar entered into a fraudulent compromise and obtained the judgement and decree of the Apex Court on 24.4.2002.
It is submitted that in two Second Appeals No. 586 of 1992 and 169 of 1992, in other matters, which were filed by Jaipur Traders and Raj Kumar Poddar before this Court, as application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC annexing therewith the judgement of the Apex Court. It is contended that by annexing the fudgement of the Apex Court which had been collusively obtained without making the applicant as a party before the Apex Court, an attempt was made to interfere with the administration of justice and thereby the opposite parties were guilty of contempt of court.
For the opposition, that obtaining judgement fraudulently or collusively amounts to criminal contempt punishable u/s 2(c)(iii) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it tends to interfere or obstruct with the administration of justice, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Murray and Co. Vs. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another,
It may be noted that the said case related to a situation where a wrong and false affidavit had been filed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had taken cognizance of the matter and held the contemnor guilty.
Significantly, in the present case, in pursuance of the judgement of the Apex Court dated 24.4.2008 no step had been taken by the applicant for seeking review of the said order on the ground of alleged fraud and exclusion of the applicant as a party.
In our view the subordinate court (in this case this High Court) would be in a quandary if the Apex Court''s judgement stands, as it has not been assailed by the applicant, and yet action is taken for contempt by this Court for an alleged fraud before the Apex Court even without the judgement of the Apex Court being set aside or reviewed by it.
We also find that this contempt application has been filed after an inordinate time of four years and 224 days when the first contempt application on the same cause of action was filed quite belatedly and dismissed by an earlier Division Bench on 23.7.2007 for want of sanction from the Advocate General.
For all these reasons, we find no ground to issue notice or punish the opposite parties. There is no force in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.