1 suo moto contempt-5-09 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2010 High Court on its own Motion ..Petitioner Vs. Cyrus G. Mazkoori ..Respondent Mr. Cyrus Mazkoori in person present. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 7th February, 2011 P.C. We have heard Mr. Mazkoori against whom a show cause notice for suo moto contempt was issued by the learned single Judge on 23rd June, 2009 while dealing with Civil Application No.507 of 2009 filed in Writ Petition No.2660 of 2008. The learned Single Judge noted that Mr. Mazkoori, who appeared as a party in person and submitted Civil Application No.507 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.2660 of 2009 person had also submitted written arguments as well as sur-rejoinder and some of the averments made therein were not in keeping with the Court discipline and amounted to contemptuous statements. The learned Single Judge 2 suo moto contempt-5-09 reproduced the contents of paras.9 and 11 which we also feel it appropriate to reproduce as under:- “9.The respondent further state that he objected and pointed out to Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar J., on 24.7.2008 regarding the unaffirmed rejoinder of Petitioner no.1 contrary to this Hon’ble Court order dated 11.6.2008, no cognizance was taken by Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar J. and the respondent was not given any opportunity to file sur rejoinder inspite of my request as Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar J. was in hurry to dispose off the matter, without considering the Appellate District Court order dated 20.08.2007, passed.... 11. With respect to paragraph no.7 of the reply, it is true that the present Writ Petition came up for admission before Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar J. on July 24, 2008. I say that I had been deprived of patient hearing at length by Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, J., by threatening me with contempt proceedings, instead of respondents herein were given a detailed patient hearing at length. I further submit that no patient hearing at length was given to me when my turn came up for arguments on the contrary Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar brushed aside by threatening contempt proceedings against me. The other side was patiently heard at length. I further say that opportunity was denied to me to file my surrejoinder since the respondents had filed their 3 suo moto contempt-5-09 rejoinder on 22.7.2008 (contrary to the Hon’ble High Court order dated 11.6.2008) wherein the respondents had filed for the first time in their rejoinder a forged signed documents. I say that Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, J. hurriedly passed an interim stay order dated 24.7.2008.” The learned Single Judge also reproduced the following statement in the very same written arguments filed in Civil Application No.507 of 2009 by Mr. Mazkoori : “The respondent states that Mr. Khanwilkar, J., has intentionally overlooked and ignored the Hon’ble District Court’s order dated 20.8.2007. (emphasis supplied).” 3. In response to the show cause notice Mr.Mazkoori has filed his reply in detail and we have given him a patient hearing today. The following words quoted in the order dated 23rd June, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge while issuing the contempt notice should not have been used by Mr. Mazkoori who is also a learned member of the Bar:- 1. “was in hurry to dispose off” 2. “hurriedly passed” 4 suo moto contempt-5-09 3. intentionally overlooked and ignored (emphasis supplied) When we pointed out that the underlined words should not have been used by a litigant, leave alone a member of the Bar and, therefore, the response of Mr. Mazkoori was spontaneous and he tendered his unqualified apology across the bar and also stated that he withdraws these words like ‘hurriedly” and “intentionally”. We are satisfied that the offer so made is bonafide and there is no reason to doubt the explanation and apology furnished by Mr. Mazkoori before us. We, therefore, accept the unqualified apology tendered before us by Mr. Mazkoori and his prayer also to delete the above stated words and they stand withdrawn accordingly. 2. The proviso below Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being given to the satisfaction of the Court. We note our satisfaction of the apology tendered by Mr. Mazkoori and discharge him of the contempt notice. The Contempt Petition stands disposed accordingly. 3. Criminal Application No. 5 of 2009 does not survive and disposed as such. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)