Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. - (1.) This is an application for drawing up of proceeding for contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In course of arguments, however, on behalf of the applicants, Clause (iii) of Section 2(c) only of the Contempt of Courts Act, was relied upon and a prima facie case was attempted to be established with reference to the same.
(2.) Admittedly, a number of litigations are pending between the contesting parties, namely, the applicants and alleged contemnors, and the materials on the basis of which the alleged contumacious acts are claimed to have beets made out, are broadly, documents and affidavits, forming parts of records of such proceedings. The said materials are:- (i) Annexure 'J' so the contempt application, which is an affidavit by alleged contemnor No. 1. In Paragraph 20, sub-paragraph (a) of the said affidavit an averment has been made to the effect that the appellant No. 1 had never appointed Sri A. K. Chowdhury, to be the Advocate-on Record for it that on a search of the record of the Department of this Hon'ble Court, no Vokalatnama of the appellant No. 1, appointing Sri Chowdhury, had been traced. (ii) The second document, which is also a part of Annexure 'J' to the present contempt application and had been marked as Annsxure 'A' to the said Annexure 'J' embodies a resolution dated 25.7.1997, to the effect that Mr. A. K. Chowdhury, Advocate, should he barred to represent Company or any of its Directors in any way before any official, authority or any Court of Law along with as authorization in favour of one Mr. Gouri Shankar Jain to is form Mr. Chowdhury about the said resolution. The said resolution appears at page 286 of the Paper Book and has been described as 'extract of minutes' of the Board Meeting.
(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid, Mr. Sen argued that the requisites of Section 2, Clause C(iii), had been fulfilled although no favourable order can be said to have resulted on the basis of the alleged contumacious acts of misrepresentation and false statement. According to Mr. Sen, the requirement of a favourable order, resulting from the mis-representation or false statement, would arise only in the case of Section 2, Clause (c), sub-clause (ii).;