- (1.) On 10-3-1994, Justice S. K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court addressed a letter to the Acting Chief Justice of that Court as follows : "No. SKK/ALL/8/94 10-3-1994 Dear Brother Actg. Chief Justice Though on 9-3-1994 ifself I orally narrated about the misbehaviour of Shri V. C. Mishra with me in the Court but I thought it advisable to give you the same in writing also. On 9-3-1994 I was sitting with Justice Anshuman Singh in Court No. 38. In the list of fresh cases of 9-3-1994 at Sr. No. 5 FAFO Record No. 22793 M/s Bansal Forgings Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corpn. filed by Smt. S. V. Mishra was listed. Shri V. C. Mishra appeared in this case when the case was called. Brief Facts of that Case M/s Bansal Forgings Ltd. took loan from U. P. Financial Corporation and it made default in payment of instalment of the same. The Corporation proceeded against the Company under Sec. 29 of the U. P. Financial Corporation Act. The Company filed a civil suit against the Corporation and it has also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. Counsel for the Corporation suo motu put appearance in the matter before trial Court and prayed for time for filing of reply. The learned trial Court passed an order on the said date that the Corproation will not seize the factory of the Company. The Company shall pay the amount of instalment and it will furnish also security for the disputed amount. The Court directed to furnish security on 31-1-1994 and case was fixed on 15-3-1994. Against said order of the trial Court this appeal has been filed and arguments have been advanced that that Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order for payment of instalment of loan and further no security could have been ordered. I put a question to Shri Mishra under which provision this order has been passed. On putting of question he started to shout and said that no question could have been put to him. He will get me transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against me in Parliament. He further said that he has turned up many Judges. He created a good scene in the Court. He asked me to follow the practice of this Court. In sum and substance, it is a matter where except to abuse me of mother and sister he insulted me like anything. What he wanted to convey to me was that admission is as a course and no arguments are heard, at this stage. It is not the question of insulting of a Judge of this institution but is a matter of institution as a whole. In case dignity of Judiciary is not being maintained then where this institution will stand. In case a Senior Advocate, President of Bar and Chairman of Bar Council of India behaves in Court in such manner what will happen to other Advocates. Since the day I have come here I am deciding the cases on merits. In case a case has merits it is admitted but not as a matter of course. In this Court probably Advocates do not like the consideration of cases on their merits at the stage of admission. In case dignity of Judiciary is not restored then it is very difficult for the Judges to discharge their judicial function without fear and favour. I am submitting this matter to you in writing to bring this mishappening in the Court with the hope that you will do something for restoration of dignity of Judiciary. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Jus. S. K. Keshote)"
(2.) The Acting Chief Justice, Shri V. K. Khanna forwarded the said letter to the then Chief Justice of India by his letter of 5-4-1994. The learned Chief Justice of India constituted this Bench to hear the matter on 15-4-1994.
(3.) On 15-4-1994, this Court took the view that there was a prima facie case of criminal contempt of Court committed by Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') and issued a notice against him to show-cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. By the same order, Shir D. P. Gupta, the learned Solicitor General of India was requested to assist the Court in the matter. Pursuant to the notice, the contemner filed his reply by affidavit dated 10-5-1994 and also an application seeking discharge of show-cause notice, and in alternative for an inquiry to be held into the incident referred to by Justice Keshote in his letter which had given rise to the contempt proceedings. It is necessary at this stage to refer to the material portions of both the affidavit and the application filed by the contemner. After referring to his status as a Senior Advocate of the Allahabad High Court and his connections with the various law organisations in different capacities to impress upon the Court that he had a deep involvement in the purity, integrity and solemnity of judicial process, he has submitted in the affidavit that but for his deep commitments to the norms of judicial processes as evidenced by his said status and connections, he would have adopted the usual expedient of submitting his unconditional regrets. But the facts and circumstances of this case were such which induced him to "state the facts and seek the verdict of the Court" whether he had committed the alleged contempt or wherther it could be "a Judge committing contempt of his own Court". He has then stated the facts which according to him form the 'genesis' of the present controversy. They are as follows : "A. A Private Ltd. Co. had taken an instalment loan from U. P. Financial Corporation, which provides under its constituent Act (Sec. 29) for some sort of self-help in case of default of instalments. B. A controversy arose between the said Financial Corporation and the borrower as a result of which, the borrower had to file a civil suit seeking an injuction against the Corporation for not opting for the non-judicial sale of their assets. C. The civil Court granted the injunction against putting the assets to sale, but at the same time directed furnishing security for the amount due. D. Being aggrieved by the condition of furnishing security, which in law would be tantamount to directing a mortgagor to furnish security for payment of mortgage loan, even when he satisfies the Court that a stay is called for - the property mortgaged being a pre-existing security for its payment. E. The Company filed an FAFO being No. 229793 of 1994 against the portion of the order directing furnishing of security. F. The said FAFO came for preliminary hearing before Hon'ble Justice Anshuman Singh and the Applicant of this petition on 9-3-1994, in which I argued for the debtor-Company. G. When the matter was called on Board, the Applicant took charge of the Court proceedings and virtually foreclosed attempts made by the Senior Judge to intervene. The Applicant Judge inquired from me as to under what law the impugned order was passed to which I replied that it was under various rules of Order 39 CPC. That Applicant, therefore, conveyed to me that he was going to set aside the entire order, against a portion of which I had come in appeal, beacuse in his view the Lower Court was not competent to pass such an order as Order 39 did not apply to the facts. H. I politely brought to the notice of the Applicant Judge that being the appellant I had the dominion over the case and it could not be made worse, just because I had come to High Court. /. The Applicant Judge apparently lost his temper and told me in no unconcealed term that he would set aside the order in toto, disregarding what I had said. /. Being upset over, what I felt was an arbitrary approach to judicial process I got emotionally perturbed and my professional and institutional sensitivity got deeply wounded and I told the Applicant Judge that it was not the practice in this Court to dismiss cases without hearing or to upset judgments or portions of judgments, which have not been appealed against. Unfortunately, the Applicant Judge took it unsportingly and apparently lost his temper and directed the stenographer to take down the order for setting aside of the whole order. K. At this juncture, the Hon'ble Senior Judge intervened, whispered something to the Applicant Judge and directed the case to be listed before some other Bench. It was duly done and by an order of the other Court dated 18-3-1994 Hon'ble Justices B. M. Lai and S. K. Verma, the points raised by me before the Applicant Judge were accepted. A copy of the said order is reproduced as Annexure I to this affidavit. L. I find it necessary to mention that the exchange that took place between me and the Applicant Judge got a little heated up. In the moment of heat the Applicant Judge made the following observations : 'I am from the Bar and if need be I can take to goondaism.' Adding in English - 'I never opted for Allahabad. I had opted for Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. I do not know why the Chief Justice of India disregarded my options and transferred me to this place, which I never liked.' Provoked by this I asked him whether he was creating a scene to create conditions for getting himself transferred as also talked earlier." After narrating the above incident, the contemner has gone on to deny that he had referred to any impreachment, though according to him he did mention that "a Judge got himself transferred earlier on account of his inability to command the goodwill of the Bar due to lack of mutual reverence".;