Sabharwal, J. - (1.) Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the courts own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 SCC 549.
(2.) The main issue for determination in these appeals is whether contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant suo motu by the court or by respondents. First we may note the background under which these matters were referred to a larger Bench.
(3.) Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta vs. K. Suba Rao and Anr. ILR (1974) 1 Del 1 issued following directions : "The office is to take note that in future if any information is lodged even in the form of a petition inviting this Court to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution, where the informant is not one of the persons named in Section 15 of the said Act, it should not be styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side. Such a petition should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and the Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the information." ;