NAJMI WAZIRI,J. - (1.) This case concerns the conduct of the respondent on 28.01.2009 during court proceedings in Co.A(SB)6/2008 and Co.A.(SB)7/2008, titled as "Sonia Khosla &Anr. v. Vikram Bakshi & Ors." and Mr. R.P. Khosla v. M/s Montreaux Resort (P) Limited & Ors." respectively. The learned Single Judge found the respondent's conduct as constituting criminal contempt of court. The case was referred to a Division Bench. The order of 28.1.2009 reads as under: "1. CA No. 1000,1290 and 1446/2008 in Co. A (SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 1001/2008 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 filed by the appellants are under hearing by this court. Appellant has already been heard on these applications and learned counsel for the respondents was being heard when the matter was adjourned to today to make the submissions in reply. 2. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the appeal filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board and had opened submissions that the appellant cannot be permitted to set up case not pleaded in the petition before the Company Law Board. It was also their contention that the appellant cannot modify or vary the petition filed on 13th August, 2007 by way of filing an additional affidavit about six months thereafter on 30th January, 2008. Reliance was placed on the memorandum of understanding between some of the parties which was the basis of the petition before the Company Law Board. 3. The applications before this Court are in the nature of a review of hearings wherefrom a brother colleague has recused himself for reasons of scandalous averments contained in CA No. 1000/2008. It is well settled that consideration of any application has to abide by judicial record which is placed before the court. Fully conscious of the well settled legal position, unfounded allegations before even submissions could be completed by counsel have been made. 4. The matter was adjourned at request of counsel for the respondents to today. During the Intervening period CA No. 133/2009 in Co.A(SB) No. 7/2008 and CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 have been filed on behalf of the applicant. 5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, the applicant insisted on arguing CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB) No. 6/2008 and CA No. 27/2009 and 31/3009 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 objecting to the appearance of learned counsel on the other side on the ground that they have no right to appear. 6. Counsels for the respondents were heard and have drawn my attention to the memo of parties filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the Company Law Board wherein this company was arrayed as the respondent no. 1 and was represented by counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 before this court. Counsels relied on paras 3 to 9 of order dated 31st January, 2008 passed by the Company Law Board at page 60 of Co.A(SB) No. 6/2008. In this background, inasmuch as counsels had appeared for the respondents before the Company Law Board and the present petition in appeal being continuation thereof, I saw no reason as to why they cannot continue to complete the arguments in the part-heard matter. It was pointed out that no such objection was ever raised even though the same counsel have been appearing in the matter right from the first date when the respondents first put in appearance. Caveat is also stated to have been filed. 7. In this background, Mr. Vibhu Bhakru, Advocate who has been addressing arguments was asked to resume arguments on the part-heard application. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Khosla rose and started gesticulating. He interrupted the court proceedings in a loud voice making allegations that the counsels appearing in the matter have no right of audience in the matter and that proceedings in this court are not as per law. All requests to him to contain himself, to resume his seat and permit respondents' counsel to complete his submission did not bear any fruit. Mr. Khosla continued to interrupt the court proceedings in loud and obstructive tone and making allegations against the counsel appearing on the other side in open court that they are lying. 8. He used insulting language and has cast aspersions on counsel appearing on the other side. The allegations made are scandalous and aimed at creating prejudice and embarrassment to counsel who are discharging their professional duties towards their client. I have been exercising considerable restraint keeping in view that Mr. Deepak Khosla was appearing in person. The respondents have objected to his appearance inasmuch as he is arrayed as respondent no. 11 before the Company Law Board in the petition which has been filed by his wife Ms. Sonia Khosla as the petitioner and Mr. Khosla is the opposite party before the Company Law Board. 9. His conduct in court today was so obstructive that this court found it impossible to record the order in open court and has risen to dictate this order in chambers. , 10. The acts of Mr. Deepak Khosla in standing up when the other side is arguing gesticulating with his hands, raising his voice and not permitting the proceedings in the court to continue amounts to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings before this court, which prima facie, constitutes criminal contempt of court. 11. Paras 1 to 9 of this order be treated as the facts constituting the graveman of the charge as per para 10 above. 12. Let a copy of order be given to Mr. Deepak Khosla under signatures of the Court Master. Mr. Deepak Khosla is hereby called upon to submit his response to this order, which is being treated as a notice of charge, to be responded within two weeks. 13. The contempt matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings. Registry shall appropriately register the matter and place copies of all the orders and applications noticed above before the Division Bench. Dasti."
(2.) 'Criminal contempt' is defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), as under: "(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; ..."
(3.) On 06.02.2009 notice under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was issued: the order of 28.01.2009 was i) treated as a statement containing the facts, and ii) it became notice to the contemnor of the charge of having committed contempt of court. The respondent was required to submit his response thereto by way of affidavit. However, the respondent never did so, despite the case having been listed for 75 times, over a span of more than a decade.;