- (1.) AMAR Saran and S. C. Nigam, JJ. Heard Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THE facts of this case necessary for disposing of this application are that a special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was con verted into Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 1997 (Lalit Kumar Jain and another v. Jaipur Trad ers Corporation Private Limited ). In that case, the grievance of the applicant is that the applicant was not im-pleaded as a party and collusively Jaipur Traders, who was the respondent in the civil appeal and the appellants Lalit Kumar Jain and Raj Kumar Poddar entered into a fraudulent compromise and obtained the judgment and decree of the Apex Court on 24. 4. 2002. It is submitted that in two Second Appeals No. 586 of 1992 and 169 of 1992, in other matters, which were filed by Jaipur Traders and Raj Kumar Poddar before this Court, an application was filed under Or der XLI, Rule 27 CPC annexing therewith the judgment of the Apex Court. It is con tended that by annexing the judgment of the Apex Court which had been collusively obtained without making the applicant as a party before the Apex Court, an attempt was made to interfere with the administra tion of justice and thereby the opposite parties were guilty of contempt of Court.
(3.) FOR the proposition, that obtaining judgment fraudulently or collusively amounts to criminal contempt punishable under section 2 (c) (iii) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it tends to interfere or obstruct with the administration of justice, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Murray and Company v. Ashok Kumar Newatia and another. JT 2000 (1) SC 337 It may be noted that the said case re lated to a situation where a wrong and false affidavit had been filed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had taken cognizance of the matter and held the contemnor guilty. Significantly, in the present case, in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 24. 4. 2008 no step had been taken by the applicant for seeking review of the said order on the ground of alleged fraud and exclusion of the applicant as a party. In our view the subordinate Court (in this case this High Court) would be in a quandary if the Apex Court's judgment stands, as it has not been assailed by the applicant and yet action is taken for con tempt by this Court for an alleged fraud before the Apex Court even without the judgment of the Apex Court being set aside or reviewed by it.;