REGISTRAR HIGH COURT A S BOMBAY Vs. S K IRANI
LAWS(BOM)-1962-12-2
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 05,1962

REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, A.S., BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
S.K. IRANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

IN RE: K.L.GAUBA [REFERRED TO]
M.V.RAJWADE V. S.M.HASSAN [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMA PRAKASH SHANNA VS. STATE OT UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BRAJNANDAN SINHA VS. JYOTINARAIN [REFERRED TO]
VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN TEWARI VS. RAJ BAHADUR VARMA [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAMA PESHA VS. VENKATRAO SWAMIRAO NAZARE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

V A KANADE ADVOCATE VS. MADHAV GADKARI EDITOR DAILY LOKSATTA [LAWS(BOM)-1989-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTTA SINGH VS. PRITAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1967-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMEDBHIKHAN HUSSAINBHAI VS. MANAGER CHANDRABHANU CINEMA [LAWS(GJH)-1985-10-1] [REFERRED]
Liladhar Baurasi VS. Shivmohan Singh Parihar [LAWS(MPH)-1992-2-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Tambe, J. - (1.)Both these matters can be disposed of by one judgment as they arise out of the same subject-matter. By Criminal Application No. 339 of 1952 the Government Pleader has moved this Court that opponents Nos. 1 to 3, viz., Mr. S. K. Irani, an advocate practising in this court, Mr. K. A. Master and Miss Master, have committed contempt of Court and action be taken against them under the Contempt of Courts Act and they be punished. Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 has been made on the basis of a report made by Mr. A. G. Kotwal, 2nd Addl. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Greater Bombay.
(2.)The facts in brief are:-- Mr. K. A. Master, the second opponent to Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 had filed an application (Application No. 4492 of 1959) against M/s Jeena and Co. before the Payment of wages. Authority claiming certain amount as wages. This applicaiton was placed for disposal before Mr. A. G. Kotwal, 2nd Addl. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay. It appears that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. On 24th March 1961 Mr. Kotwal after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the said application. In due course a stage was reached for recording evidence, and 17th August 1961 was the date fixed for recording evidence. On that day some evidence was recorded and it appears that D. N. Salway, witness for Mr. Master, was in the witness-box by the end of the day. On the next day, i.e., 18th August 1961, an application was mads by Mr. Master asking for time to file an application for declaring Salway as a hostile witness. The case was adjourned to 22nd August 1961. On this day, Mr. Kotwal also inquired from the parties about the possibility of an amicable settlement of the case, and both the parties expressed their willingness to settle the matter. There was certain talk about the terms of the compromise. There was a suggestion that the amount of wages to be paid by M/s Jeena and Co. to Mr. Master should be left to Mr. Kotwal. There was also a demand on behalf of Mr. Master that not only he should get his wages but he should be reinstated in service. But to this demand of Mr. Master for reinstatement in service, M/s Jeena and co. were not agreeable. On 22nd August the parties informed Mr. Kotwal that the talks for settlement had broken down on the question of reinstatement. Mr. Irani, the first opponent before us, who was appearing as Counsel before the Payment of Wages Authority then, asked for time to file an objection for declaring Salway as a hostile witness. Mr. Master was directed to file his objection before 16th September 1961 and the other side was directed to file its reply before 13th November 1961 and the case was fixed for further hearing, by mutual consent, on 27th, 28th and 29th of November and 1st of December 1951. Mr. Master, however, did not file the application by the ordered date, but on the other hand, from time to time, asked for further time. On 4th November 1961 the advocates for the parties saw Mr. Kotwal in his chamber, and Mr. Irani informed Mr. Kolwal that Mr. Master was not insisting on the term of reinstatement and, therefore, the settlement was likely because the parties were determined to settle all the disputes. The case was, therefore, first fixed on 13th of November and then adjourned to 27th of November. We should have mentoined earlier that M/s Jeena and Co. were represented by M/s Gagrat and Co. Solicitors and two of their partners, Rustom Gagrat and Jehangir Gagrat were appearing from time to time for M/s. Jeena and Co. We should have also mentioned that Mr. Irani who was appearing as Counsel for Mr. Master, is also his brother-in-law. The third opponent Miss Master is the sister of opponent No. 2 Mr. Master.
(3.)On 27th of November 1961 the parties and their Counsel appeared before Mr. Kotwal. Miss Master also was present in Court. Mr. Kotwal suggested to the parties to fix amicably the figure of compensation or wages payable to Mr. Master. There was discussion for some time between the parties, but no figures could be agreed to between them. Both the parties informed Mr. Kolwal that he should now fix the figure and neither party should higgle-haggle about it. Mr. Kotwal then asked the parties to address him on the question as to what amount should be paid to Mr. Master. The Advocates for the parties accordingly addressed the Court. Mr. Kotwal then dictated the draft consent terms, leaving the quantum of amount blank. The parties and their advocates read the draft consent terms and approved it. Thereafter a tair draft or those consent terms was prepared leaving the quantum of .amount blank. The fair draft was again read by Counsel for , parties and their advocates. Mr. Kotwal then asked the advocates to sign the consent terms in the fair draft. In the blank left on the fair draft Mr. Kotwal then wrote the figure of Rs. 4,173. The amount as fixed by Mr. Kotwal and written down in the consent terms was made known to the Counsel and the parties who were present. The consent ierms were then again handed over to Mr. Kotwal who endorsed them as accepted and signed. Thereafter MT. Kotwal proceeded to make the endorsement in roznama of the case. At this stage Miss Master started snouting and tried to snatch the copy Of the consent terms from the Attorney of M/s Jeena and Co. She did not, however, succeed in her attempt. She then approached Mr. Kolwal and attempted to snatch the original consent terms from Mr. Kotwal. She told Mr. Kotwal in an angry fore, "This settlement is not acceptable to us". Mr. Kotwal told Mr. Irani, Advocate for Mr. Master, that Miss Master was not concerned in the matter and unless she behaved herself, police would be called in. Thereupon Mr. Master re-quested his sister to leave the Court and eventually Mr. Master took her out of the Court. On 28th November 1962, Mr. Master fited an application in person before Mr. Kotwal stating therein that the consent terms were not Binding on him and that his application under the Payment of wages Act should be proceeded with on merits. A notice of this application was directed to be issued to M/s Jeena and Co. and the case was tixed for 7th December 1961.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.