1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 88 OF 1985 PETITION NO. 88 OF 1985 PETITION NO. 88 OF 1985 The Maharashtra State Coop Appellate Court, Bombay .. Appellant vs 1. The Navjivan Coop Hsg Scty & ors. Respondents Mr.Sanjeev Hariakar for Appellant Mr.Y.R.Naik for Respondent no.1 Ms G.P.Mulekar AGP for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. .. CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J DATE: DATE: DATE: 21st September, 2005 21st September, 2005 21st September, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Contempt Petition arises from the report submitted by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court at Mumbai under section 148 (A). 2 2. Under section 150 of the said Act an application for review registered as Review Appication No.13 of 1984 was filed before the Cooperative Appellate Court praying for review of its earlier order dated 23rd Aaugust, 1984 in Appeal No.237 of 1984. This review application was made by Shri N.M.Advani and there were 3 respondents namely Shri R.H.Sohani, Secretary, Shri Chandru F Mirchandani Chairman and Shri Vensimal N.Advani Hon.Secretary of Navjeevan Cooperative Housing Society, Matunga, Mumbai. The first respondent was claiming to be the Honorary General Secretary of the main society at Lamington Road whereas the second respondent was shown to be the Chariman of the Matunga unit and the third respondent as the Honourary Secretary of the Matunga unit. It appears that there were allegations against the society that elections held on 20th May, 1984 were in defiance of the injunction order granted by the lower appellate court. In an appeal filed contempt motion instituted was disposed of on the statement made by the respondents that they had acted without legal advice and that they could not inform the Court. 3 The lower appellate Court was therefore satisfied that there was a bonafide mistake on their part and there was no intention of defiance of the Court’s order. The apology tendered was accepted. 3. In the review application it appears that the applicants made out a case that the Court was misled in disposing of the contempt motion and therefore the order dated 23rd August, 1984 was required to be reviewed under section 150 of the said Act. While allowing the review application the lower appellate Court observed thus : " Further on oral submission of their advocate at the time of hearing of the appeal and the contempt question I was misled in holding that the mistakes were committed bonafidely and without intention as is evident from the subsequent events. So with the material on the record I should have held them prima facie liable for an action under the Contempt of Court order for disobedience of the court’s order. It is clear that the respondents have no regard for the court’s order and considering the phrases ’ as even for any other sufficient reasons and just order ’ as provided in section 150 (i) of the M.C.S.Act, I am inclined to review the order regarding contempt of court action against the respondents. " 4. In the entire order dated 7th February, 1985 the learned Member of the lower Appellate Court has not given any reasons in support of his observations that he was misled in holding that 4 mistakes were committed bonafide and without intentions as was evident from the subsequent events. The order is silent on the subsequent events. Even if the subsequent events were pointed out by the review applicant, it was necessary for the lower appellate court to give reasons in accepting such events to be correct or such events mainly were the basis of misleading the court. 5. Section 148 A (4) of the Act states that if any person commits any act or publishes in writing which is calculated to improperly influence the Cooperative Court or the Cooperative Appellate Court to bring any such court or a member thereof into disrepute or contempt or to lower its or his authority or to interfere with the lawful process of the said authorities, such a person shall be held to be guilty of contempt of the said authorities. It was therefore necessary for the lower appellate court to record a finding that the acts of the respondents were calculated to improperly influence or to bring disrepute or to lower its authority or to interfere with the lawful process of the said court or contempt. 5 The learned Member has only stated in the order dated 7th February, 1985 that he was inclined to review the order of contmept. The term " contempt" has not been defined under the Act whereas section 2 (b) and 2(c) of the Contempt of Court’s Act 1971 defined the term " civil contempt " and " criminal contempt" respectively. It was therefore necessary for the court below to prima facie observe whether the acts were civil contempt or criminal contempt. If there was a clear cut finding in the report submitted that the order of injunction or any order passed by the lower appellate court was breached it would be a case of "civil contempt" and if the report prima facie showed that the acts of the respondents were calculated to improperly influence the court or to bring the court in disrepute or lower its authority or interfere with the lawful process of the court, then it would be a case of criminal contempt. Under the Appellate Side Rules of this Court cases of civil contempt are placed before the Single Judge dealing with civil matters whereas in case of criminal contempt they would be placed before the Division Bench dealing with criminal matters or as notified by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the roaster issued from time to 6 time. 6. Under the circumstances, it would not be safe to hold that there is a clear case of contempt against any of the respondents more so when the order in review does not assign any specific act against any of the respondents or all of them which would fall within the ambit of "contempt" except that the learned Member of the lower appellate court has observed that under the law the office bearers namely Chairman and the respondent no.2 is presumed to be incharge of the office record etc. Needless to mention the powers of contempt are to be invoked sparingly. 7. In the result, this Contempt Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, J) J) J)