Please open link: https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/original/2012/CONP10611291112.pdf
Can read order here also:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2012
IN
SUIT NO. 527 OF 2005
Capt. Sukhdev Singh :Petitioner
versus
The Chairman and Managing Director,
The Great Eastern Shhipping Company
and Ors. :Contemnors
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 398 OF 2012
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2012
WITH
SUIT NO. 527 OF 2005
Capt. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner present in person.
Mr. N. G. Thakker, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Berjis Colabawala, Ms.
Viloma Shah and Mr. Ativ patel, i/b. M/s. Hariani and Co., for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. J. S. Saluja, AGP, for Respondent No. 4.
CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR &
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.
DATED :- NOVEMBER 29, 2012
Page 1 of 5
J.V.Salunke,PA
CONTP.7.2012.doc
P.C. :-
We have heard the Petitioner in person and Counsel for
the Respondents. The Petitioner, before instituting the present
Contempt Petition, moved the Advocate General for initiating
contempt action on two grounds. Firstly, because of breach of
undertaking given to the Court and secondly, because of
scandalizing the Court's Authority and for interfering with the
administration of justice.
2) With regard to the first aspect, the Advocate General
opined and, in our opinion, justly, that it is open to the Petitioner
to pursue remedy of Civil Contempt. With regard to the second
aspect raised by the Petitioner, the Advocate General, on
examination of the papers, was of the opinion that the issue raised
by the Petitioner was also raised in the Notice of Motion Nos. 2514
of 2007 and 3415 of 2007. Those Notice of Motions were decided
against the Petitioner and the grievance made by the Petitioner has
been negatived. That finding was subject matter of challenge in
Appeal, which has been disposed of, without reversing the finding
so recorded by the Learned Single Judge. On that premise, the
Page 2 of 5
J.V.Salunke,PA
CONTP.7.2012.doc
Advocate General was of the considered opinion that no
permission for initiating Criminal Contempt is warranted. The
Petitioner has now approached this Court by way of present
Petition and has prayed for initiating contempt action against the
Respondents for deliberately and willfully indulging in acts
constituting contempt of Court.
3) During the arguments, the Petitioner plainly conceded
that the allegations, on the basis of which this Contempt Petition is
founded, were also raised in Notice of Motion No. 2514 of 2007
and 3415 of 2007. He also admits that the Learned Single Judge
has dealt with those allegations but, argues that the Division Bench
has kept all issues open to be decided in the Suit and; for which
reason, the opinion of the Learned Single Judge cannot be the
basis to answer the controversy. The fact remains that the
Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present Contempt
Petition, on the basis of same allegations pertaining to the issuance
of letter of termination dated 5th June, 2006 and continuing with
the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, during the
pendency of this Suit. Both these aspects were subject matter of
Page 3 of 5
J.V.Salunke,PA
CONTP.7.2012.doc
the Notice of Motions decided against the Petitioner. The Division
Bench of the High Court has not overturned the said opinion but,
observed that the same is made at interlocutory stage and the Suit
will have to be decided on its own merits. That does not mean
that the grievance of the Petitioner regarding issuance of
termination letter dated 5th June, 2006 or for that matter
continuing with disciplinary proceedings against him during the
pendency of this Suit has not been examined by the Learned Single
Judge at all or is not subject matter of the Suit, stated to be still
pending.
4) Suffice it to observe that in the fact situation of the
present case, we do not deem it necessary to initiate contempt
action, while keeping all questions raised regarding illegal
termination of service, open, to be decided in appropriate
proceedings. The argument of the Petitioner that he has not
specifically challenged the letter dated 5th June, 2006 in the Suit,
does not mean that the Petitioner can be permitted to challenge
the validity of said communication in the Contempt Petition. The
Petitioner is free to take recourse to such remedy as may be
permissible in law.
Page 4 of 5
J.V.Salunke,PA
CONTP.7.2012.doc
5) Hence, this Petition should fail. The same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of of the Contempt Petition, we are not
inclined to examine the grievance made by the Petitioner in the
companion Notice of Motion. The same is also disposed of, with
liberty to the Petitioner to pursue other remedy, as may be advised.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)
Page 5 of 5
J.V.
