A.N.MULLA, J. - (1.) RAJA Himanshu Dhar Singh of Tekari and four others presented this petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the 12 respondents committed contempt of Court when respondent No. 1 called the tenth annual general meeting of the Hind Provincial Plying' Club on the 31st of July, 1960 and the other eleven respondents attended this meeting and then passed a resolution against the earlier resolution passed by some of the members of this Club on the 15th of May, 1960. The contempt consisted in the fact that the dispute between the members of the Club was referred to the Registrar, Co -operative Societies under the provisions of the Co -operative Societies Act on the 23rd of May, 1960 and the Assistant Registrar to whom the Registrar has delegated his powers to arbitrate in the matter had issued an injunction as early as the 18th of July, 1960 that no further meeting should be called and this direction was flouted and disobeyed. It was further pointed out that all the respondents from 2 to 12 when they attended the meeting held on the 31st of July, 1960 should be presumed to know that such an injunction was passed by the Assistant Registrar and also that against the decision of the Assistant Registrar which was given on the 23rd of July, 1960 respondent No. 1 intended to file an appeal and it was actually filed on the 4th of August, 1960. This should also, therefore, be presumed that all these respondents knew that an appeal was going to be filed and yet they flouted the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and held a counter meeting in order to belittle the legal importance of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the applicants at length. He has ably presented his case before me and he has resolved my doubts on some matters. It is true that I do not agree with some of his contentions, but at the same time I want to record my appreciation of the assistance which he tried to give to the Court. Still the matter before me is not very involved. There are only two or three questions which need be determined and it is not necessary to deal with all those aspects which were placed before me by the counsel for the applicants.
(3.) IN a contempt of Court case the main questions to be decided are whether in fact a contempt was committed by the accused persons and whether under the law the Court is empowered to deal with the contempt. The arguments addressed to me by the counsel for the applicants may briefly be summarised as follows : - 1. The Registrar and the Assistant Registrar of the Co -operative Societies are statutory arbitrators and a dispute if it arises between the members of a registered Club must be referred to them for arbitration. 2. The Assistant Registrar who functioned as the arbitrator in this dispute was a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. On a correct interpretation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Assistant Registrar functioned as a subordinate Court to the High Court, and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar was a subordinate Court to the High Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. The conduct of the opposite parties mentioned in the earlier part of this decision clearly amounted to contempt of Court. As I have come to the conclusion that the Assistant Registrar was not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act and as in my opinion even if he is held to be a Court, he was certainly not a subordinate Court to the High Court, I need not discuss the other two points mentioned by me in the summary above.;