ivil Appeal No 350 of 1977
From the Judgment and Order dated 19101976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 385 of 1974
SN Kacker and Shri Narain for the Appellants
Harish N Salve Mrs PS Shroff SS Shroff and SA Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for setting aside the decree in an earlier suit being Suit No 61 A of 1955 instituted by Dammu Lal husband of the respondent No 1 and father of respondent No 2 to 12 for eviction of the appellants from a building in Raipur which is in their occupation as tenants
Dammu Lal also prayed for a decree for arrears of rent and damages
The prayer for eviction was allowed along with a money decree for Rs260 as arrears of rent and Rs137 as damages the tenants filed an appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No 7 A of 1965
During the pendency of the appeal Dammu Lal died and his legal representatives were substituted as respondents
Some of his children were minor who were placed under the guardianship of their mother Smt
Sugandhibai respondent No l
An application purporting to be a compromise petition on behalf of all the parties was filed before the court which was recorded and the suit was disposed of in its terms by the appellate court on 2341966
According to the compromise the entire decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed with the parties bearing their own costs
The respondents have challenged the compromise decree by the present suit
The trial court dismissed the suit
On appeal the first appellate court reversed the decision set aside the compromise decree and directed the Civil Appel No 7 A of 1965 to be disposed of afresh1 in accordance with law
By PG NO 198 the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the appellants
Mr Kacker the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal placed the facts relevant to the several questions raised by the parties and decided by the courts below and contended that the decision of the High Court is illegal on several grounds
We do not consider it necessary to go into all the questions disposed of by the courts below as the respondents are in our view entitled to succeed in the suit on one of the several points urged on their behalf which is discussed below
As has been stated earlier some of the party respondents in Civil Appeal No 7 A of 1965 including Kamal Kumar one of the sons of Dammu Lal were minor and were represented by Mr Makasdar Advocate
In view of the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was essential for the court to have granted permission to the guardian to enter into the compromise only after considering all the relevant circumstances
From the records of the case it appears that the court before recording the compromise sanctioned leave in the following words As the appellant is prepared to forego the entire cost of the proceedings it is in the interest of the minors and benefit of the minors that this appeal be compromised
The minor respondents are represented by senior counsel and his opinion is that it will be in the interest of the minor to compromise the appeal
In view of this I have no reason to disagree with him
I am satisfied that the compromise is in the interest of the minors hence I allow the application and grant the necessary permission under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC to the learned counsel of the minor respondents to compromise the appeal
 On the face of it the compromise was one sided whereby the minors were giving up their right under the trial court s decree both in respect to eviction as well as arrears of rent and damages
It is said that as a consideration for the compromise the appellants were giving up their right to claim costs which might have been decreed by the appellate court in case of their success cn merits
According to the respondents  case which has been accepted by the two courts below the guardian of the minors was guilty of gross negligence in entering into the com promise by failing to take into account the interest of the minors
On behalf of the appellants it has been contended PG NO 199 that during the pendency of Civil Appeal No 7 A of 1965 the MP Accommodation Control Act was passed and the decree of the trial court was likely to be set aside
In that view it is urged the minor s guardian through Mr Makasdar acted rightly in settling the dispute and thus saving a decree for costs which could have been passed against them
According to the further case of the respondents the relevant circumstances and the terms of the compromise were never explained to the respondent No 1 and Mr Mokasdar asked for the court s permission to enter into the compromise on behalf of the minor without any instruction from their guardian in this regard
It is also urged that the language of the order whereby the court granted its permission indicates that the court did not apply its mind independently
However we do not consider it necessary to decide these points as also several others raised by the parties as in our view the compromise decree must be set aside on the ground of gross negligence
It has not been suggested on behalf of the appellants in the present case that there was any ground available to them to successfully challenge the money decree passed in the earlier suit
Mr Kacker also has not suggested any possible ground against that part of the decree
He however said that the decree was not for a substantial amount as it was for less than Rs400 and should therefore be ignored for the purposes of this case
The question as to whether the amount was substantial or not has to be judged in the light of the circumstances in the case
Here the building in question was a small one fetching a small amount of rent and a sum of Rs400 could not be ignored as inconsequential or unsubstantial
It has also to be remembered that even the cost in such a suit which was the sole consideration for the compromise could not be a large sum
Besides neither the minors advocate nor the court appears to have really considered the impact of the rent Act on the fate of the appeal which came in force during the pendency of the litigation
We therefore hold that the compromise decree is fit to be set aside and the decision of the court below does not call for any interference
Accordingly Civil Appeal No 7 A of 1965 is restored to its file before the II Additional District Judge Raipur and will now be disposed of in accordance with law
The appeal is dismissed with costs payable to respondents No I to 12
P S 
Appeal dismissed 


Summary:
The petitioner company had offered for public subscription secured convertible debentures after obtaining the consent of the Controller of Capital Issues
Before the public issue was due to open certain writ petitions etc
were filed in some High Courts challenging the grant of consent or sanction for the public issue
The petitioner there upon filed an application under Article 139A of the Constitution seeking transfer of those cases to this Court and prayed inter alia for vacation of any injunction or stay granted by the High Courts
On August 19 1988 this Court while issuing notice on the transfer applications directed that the public issue be proceeded with without let or hindrance
and vacated all orders of injunction in respect of the said issue 
On August 25 1988 an article appeared in the Indian Express to the effect that the Controller of Capital Issues had not acted properly and legally in granting the sanction to the issue and that the issue was not a prudent or a reliable venture
The petitioner moved the Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for alleged interference with the due administration of justice by publication of an article commenting on a matter which was sub judice
The petitioner also sought injunction against the threatened or expected publication of similar PG NO 212 PG NO 213 comments
The Court while declining to take cognizance of contempt in the absence of the consent of the Attorney General issued an order of injunction restraining publication of articles etc
questioning the legality or validity of any of the consents approvals or permissions for the public issue
The matter came up before the Court again to consider the question whether there was any necessity for the continuance of the order of injunction
It was contended that pre stoppage of newspaper article or publication on matters of public importance was uncalled for and contrary to freedom of press enshrined in the Constitution and the laws that public had a right to know about this issue of debentures which was a matter of public concern and the newspapers had an obligation to inform and that there was no jury trial involved here and no likelihood of the trial being prejudiced because trial was by professionally trained Judges
On the other hand it was contended that there was an inherent jurisdiction to restrain by injunction any publication that interfered with a fair trial of a pending case or with the administration of justice in general that publication was permissible provided it did not amount to prejudgment or prejudice of a matter in Court that liberty or freedom of Press must subserve the due administration of justice and that there was need to continue the injunction because contribution to the debentures could be withdrawn as the final allotment had not yet been made
While disposing of the application for the continuance of the injunction it was HELD Per Sabyasachi Mukharji J 1 The Constitution of India is not Absolute with respect to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined by the First Amendment to the American Constitution
223F 2 A judiciary is not independent unless courts of justice are enabled to administer law by absence of pressure from without whether exerted through the blandishments of reward or the menace of disfavour
A free Press is vital to a democratic society for its freedom given it power
1227F 3 The law of contempt must be judged in a particular situation
The process of due course of administration of justice must remain
Public interest demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and the PG NO 214 effect of the judicial decision should not be pre empted or circumvented by public agitation or publications
At the same time right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our land under Article 21 of our Constitution
A balance has to be struck between the requirements of free Press and fair trial
235B C A 4 The Court must examine the gravity of the evil
In other words a balance of convenience in the conventional phrase of Anglo Saxon Common Law Jurisprudence would perhaps be the proper test to follow
228Bl 5 The Court must see whether there was a present and imminent danger for the issuancecontinuance of injunction
It is difficult to lay down a fixed standard to judge as to how clear remote or imminent the danger is
234D 6 The orders passed on 19th August 1988 as reiterated on 25th August 1988 stated that there must be no legal impediment in the issue of the debentures or in the progress of the debentures taking into account the overall balance of convenience and having due regard to the sums of money involved and the progress already made1234D 7 The continuance of this injunction would amount to interference with the freedom of Press in the form of preventive injunction and it must therefore be based on reasonable grounds for the sole purpose of keeping the administration of justice unimpaired
234El 8 There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is real and imminent
The subscription to debentures having been oversubscribed there is no such imminent danger of the subscription being withdrawn before the allotment so as to make the issue vulnerable by any publication of article
235DI 9 As the issue is not going to affect the general public or public life nor any injury is involved it would be proper and legal on an appraisal of the balance of convenience between the risk which will be caused by the publication of the article and the damage to the fundamental right of freedom of knowledge of the people concerned and the obligation of Press to keep people informed that the injunction should net true any further
235H PG NO 215 10 Publication if any however would be subject to the decision of the Court on the question of the contempt of court namely prejudging the issue and thereby interfering with the due administration of justice
236A 11 Preventive remedy in the form of an injunction is no longer necessary
Whether punitive remedy will be available or not will depend upon the facts and the decision of the matter after ascertaining the consent or refusal of the Attorney General
236B Per Ranganathan J 1 It would not be correct to say that when the Court passed the order dated l991988 it had formed any prima facie opinion on the question whether the debenture issue had been validly approved or consented to by the various authorities
What predominantly influenced the Court was that even assuming prima facie as was contended in the writ petitions that there could be some doubt regarding the validity or otherwise of the consent orders etc
 the restraint by any court or tribunal on the issue of debentures at a late stage might prove catastrophic and cause irreparable loss or damage to the petitioner
The balance of convenience required that there should be no order of any court or tribunal staying the debenture issue238 E 2 The article published by the respondents though not violative of the terms of the injunction granted by this Court could have the effect of circumventing the order of this Court and rendering it ineffective
It had prima facie a tendency to affect the efficacy of and defeat the object with which this Court had passed the interim order dated 1981988
That is the reason why the second order dated 2581988 was passed
The said order was rightly passed and the contention that no such injunction ought to have been granted at all is not acceptable
239A B 3 The position has radically changed
The danger apprehended by the petitioner is not so real or substantial as to warrant the continuance of the injunction orders
239C Attorney General vs British Broadcasting Corporation
  354 Harry Bridges vs State of California at page 260 Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd  Anr
vs Union of India  Ors
  Ramesh Thapar vs State of Madras  at 597 Brij Bhushan  Anr
vs State of Delhi   State of Travancore PG NO 216 Cochin  Ors
vs Bombay Co Ltd   State of Bombay vs RMD Chamatbaugwala 19S7 SCR 874 at 918 P C Sen s case   C K Daphtary  Ors
vs O P Gupta  Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt Ltd  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
   Abrams vs United States 11963 LEd 1173 at 1180 PN Duda vs P Shiv Shanker  Ors   John D Pennekamp vs State of Florida 11945  Neoraska Press Association vs Hugh Stuart 49 LEdn 683 Attorney General vs British Broadcasting Corpn  Attorney General vs BBC  Attorney General vs Times Newspapers Ltd  Ex Parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd  and Charlotte Anita Whitney vs People of the State of California 71 LEdn 1095 at 1106