JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan and Aloke Chakrabarti, JJ.
1. The Court has heard counsel for the contemners at length. Four arguments were advanced.
(a) That the contempt proceedings had not been valldly initiated for judgment after one year from the action complained of.
(b) the proceedings for contempt suffer from an infirmity that the Cantonment Board was an essential party and, thus, the proceedings must fail by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(c) the extension of an injunction order on which there was an allegation that there was a breach of its conditions, the allegations of violation do not hold, and
(d) the appellants were not aware of the injunction order of the Court as the lawyer had not Intimated them of any knowledge of an extension of an injunction.
2. All these are technical pleas. On behalf of the contemners. no precise explanation was coming as to why the contempt proceedings must fail on the point of limitation. Firstly, it was attempted to be explained that it was beyond one year from the alleged incident and secondly, it was considered for judgment one year after the application had been filed and that an issue of notice is not application of mind for initiation of contempt proceedings. These arguments are misconceived.
3. The alleged incident on which the contempt action has been complained of is of 7th September, 1990. The contempt petition was filed on 11th October, 1990 ; well within time. The contempt petition was brought into Court with the Stamp Reporter certifying that the limitation was available until 7 September.
1991. In so far as the other aspects are concerned that an issue of notice on a contempt petition is not initiation of proceedings as the order of the Court to the effect "issue notice" or "notice to motion" is not an application of mind is an absurd plea. All over the nation when causes are presented, after the matter has been examined. Courts Invariably use the expression "issue notice" or "notice of motion". There is an assumption in a public justice system that notice has been issued on a matter presented before the Judge after the cause has been examined by the Court. Once the Court, on a presentation, before the Judge. passes an order that notices be issued to the opposite parties, the law enjoins that the matter has seen the examination of the Court and. thus, parties have been given an opportunity to file their reply to the petition or the plaint. The Court is not impressed by this argument on behalf of the contemners.
4. The third argument is that as the Cantonment Board has not been made a party, thus, the action must fail as it does not meet the requirement of Section 12(4) of the Act. This argument is also misconceived because it is clearly stated in sub-section (4) to Section 12 of the Act that the circumstance, that a Company or a Corporation may find itself being visited with contempt proceedings is in the context of an undertaking given to a Court being violated. In the present case the complaint is that an injunction order had been violated.
5. The fourth submission was that the appellants were not aware of an injunction of the Court as the lawyer had not intimated them of any knowledge of the existence of any injunction order. This argument also does not hold good. Whoever may have been the Advocate of the contemner-opposite parties in an appeal before the XIth Additional District Judge, in a matter arising out of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, there was cleverness in the communication to avoid intimation of an injunction. The lawyer of the Cantonment Board is advising the contemners, as clients, in the following words : "But the extension orders, once the order had lapsed were not correct." In the proceedings before the Court below, the Advocate of the contemners was, at every given time, aware of the fact that an injunction had been extended. The Advocate was trying to Interpret the orders of the Court that the extension, so granted, were either not correct or irregular. This plea, it appears, was tailored as a defence in the contempt action. It does not help the appellants either. The picture which emerges is that there was an injunction order which may have lapsed. But, an injunction order had been extended and the contempt, that is, the violation of the extension order had happened during the course and operation of the injunction.
6. The fine so awarded in the judgment will be deposited before the Court below, as above, within one month from today.
7. In the circumstances, the Court does not find any merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.