Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 Date of decision: 28-10-2009 Mam Chand Versus Halcyon Pharmaceutical Ltd. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate, for Mr Suman Jain, Advocate, for the respondent AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 6.4.2009, Annexure P-4, the order dated 11.5.2009, Annexure P-5, and also the contempt proceedings initiated by the plaintiff under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(for short the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff- respondent had filed a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act for violation of the order dated 10.1.2009 in which impugned notice has been issued by the Additional District Judge, Hisar for securing presence of the petitioner before the Court. According to the learned counsel,an Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act and to issue notice to secure presence of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 2 Sections 10 and 12 of the Act read as under:- “10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts—Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 12. Punishment for contempt of court-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 3 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may thing fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 4 court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prisonment of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation—For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and (5)-- (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director” in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” Section 10 deals with the power of High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts whereas Section 12 provides for punishment that may be awarded to a person found guilty of the same. It, however, does not confer any power on subordinate court to initiate action. Accordingly no petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act was maintainable before the Additional District Judge, Hisar. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar had acted totally without jurisdiction in issuing notice for securing presence of the petitioner. Consequently, the order dated 6.4.2009, Annexure P-4, the order dated 11.5.2009, Annexure P-5, and also the petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar (Annexure P/3) are hereby quashed. This petition stands disposed of. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 28, 2009 Civil Revision No. 2905 of 2009 5 RSK