Karamchand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Limited vs Manaco Properties Private Limited and Another

Govardhan, J.—The applicant in his affidavit contends briefly as follows : The deponent is the General Manager of the applicant. The

applicant had entered into various agreements with the respondents for the purchase of approximately 40% undivided share in premises at Door

No. 43-44, Montieth Road, Madras-8. The respondents has filed his report. From the report of the Commissioner, it is evident that the

respondents have continued to carry on the construction work in violation of the orders of this Court. The first respondent is a limited company in

which the second respondent is the Managing Director. Since the respondents have violated the orders of this Court and committed contempt of

court, they have to be punished. Hence the application.

The second respondent in his counter contends briefly as follows : The 2nd respondent tenders his unconditional apology for his violation of the

order of this Court. It was not intentional or mischievous, but due to circumstances. This Court has passed orders of interim injunction, restraining

the respondents from proceeding further with any work in the mezzanine floor and the fourth floor of the building. The Commissioner''s report

would show that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court. After the orders have been passed, the second respondent has not carried

on any construction activity in the mezzanine and fourth floors. The Commissioner''s report shows that in the mezzanine floor certain items of work

were not completed and in the fourth floor some workers Were working on the over head tank, which-is intended to provide water for the entire

building premises. The report also mentions that the lift motor head room was worked on and that a big room adjacent to the over head tank was

being constructed. It was not the intention of this Court to prevent the completion of the over head tank or the lift room. This is because these items

of work are essential even for the applicant to be able to occupy the premises. If the respondents have failed to construct the over head tank or the

lift room, the entire building would have remained unoccupied. It was not the intention of this Court to prevent the completion of structures

providing basic amenities to the building. The application may, therefore, be dismissed.

The applicant in his reply statement contends as follows: On the date of the order, the mezzanine floor and the fourth floor work were not

constructed completely. Despite the same, the respondents have handed over a portion of the premises in the mezzanine floor to one ""HMA

DATA SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED"" in a completed stage and have also completed construction of another portion in mezzanine floor for

handing over to ""CRISIL"". The respondents have violated the orders of this Court and have committed contempt. They are liable to be punished.

This contempt application has been filed by the applicant-plaintiff alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have violated the order of this Court

passed in O.A. No. 1078 of 1993 in C.S. No. 1806 of 1993 restraining them from proceeding further with any work in any manner in the

Mezzanine Floor and fourth floor of the commercial building, Thaper House and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the

Contempt of Courts Act. The first respondent is a Private Limited Company of which the second respondent is the Managing Director.

The second respondent in his counter has stated that it was not an intentional or mischievous, but due to circumstances violation of the orders of

this Court has been committed and he is tendering unconditional apology. The second respondent has also stated in his counter that the

Commissioner''s report shows that in the mezzanine floor, certain items of work were not completed and in the fourth floor some workers were

working on the overhead tank, which is intended to provide water for the entire building premises and that the report also mentions that the lift

motor head room was worked on and that a big room adjacent to overhead tank was being constructed. In the counter none of these observations

of the Commissioner and his report have been disputed. But, the second respondent has stated in the counter that it was not the intention of this

Court to prevent the completion of the overhead tank or the lift room and that it is because these items of work are essential even for the applicant

to be able to occupy the premises, these works have been carried out. The second respondent has also stated that if the respondents have failed to

construct the overhead tank or the lift room, the entire building would have remained unoccupied and it was not the intention of this Court to

prevent the completion of the structure providing basic amenities to the building. Therefore, it is a case in which respondents are trying to justify

their action by giving their own reasons for the violation committed by them.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that since the respondents tendered unconditional apology, it may be accepted

and they may be let off with a warning. Contempt proceedings cannot be met with a plea of justification as well as with an apology in the

alternative. The two pleas are inconsistent. Justification and apology together are incompatible. They cannot go together. The acts committed by

the respondents is an act of wilful disobedience to the order passed by this Court. The respondents only try to justify their conduct by giving a

reason that unless the work in mezzanine floor is completed and the work in the lift room is completed and a overhead tank is also put up in the

fourth floor, the building will not be suitable for occupation including the applicant and it cannot be the intention of the court that the building should

remain unoccupied ever and therefore, they have committed the acts of violation. This reasoning given by the respondents as to why they have

committed violation of the order of this Court, is to be rejected. The building was not occupied by anybody when the injunction was granted. The

injunction order is to the effect that they should not carry out any work of any nature. If the respondents wanted to complete the work so as to

enable them to make the building suitable for occupation, they ought to have come forward with an application for vacating the injunction and get

an order. Instead of doing it, they have taken the law in their hands and violated the order and now contend that it cannot be the intention of the

court that the building should, remain unoccupied. This reasoning given by the respondent justifying their action and tendering an apology is only a

mockery on the judicial system, since the contemners are conscious of the wrong done by them. It is only in cases, the apology being

unconditional, voluntary and genuine and the contemners being conscious of wrong done by them, the acceptance of such apology will sufficiently

meet the ends of justice. It is not so in cases where the apology is tendered to escape punishment for the violation committed by them. The

violation committed by the respondents is an act of contempt and it is not out of an innocent motive but deliberate and intentional. Therefore

punishment has to to be necessarily inflicted. Good faith or innocence, want of mens rea, intention or motive are no defences to contempt action,

but they are useful in mitigating circumstances in the matter of award of, punishment. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondents can at the

must be a mitigating circumstance in awarding the punishment and the respondents cannot escape from punishment. The apology to be available to

the contemner must be sincere. The apology tendered by the respondents is not sincere and it appears to be an afterthought intended merely to

avoid punishment. The counter of the second respondent discloses that it is not the case of the respondents that they have violated the order of this

Court with a good intention or good motive or with a lack of intention to offend the court. Even in those circumstances, they cannot be reasons

justifying the conduct of the contemners as in the present case in which, the respondents want to justify their action. Considering all these aspects, I

am of opinion that the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents

may be accepted and they may be let off with a warning cannot be upheld. Since the violation of the order committed by the respondents being

first of this kind, I am of opinion that a lenient view may be taken in awarding punishment to the contemners even though the respondents have

committed gross contempt. I only wish to observe that great forbearance and circumspection is expected of the court in the matter of punishing the

contemners, since the ordinary protection available to a person-accused of any criminal act or offence is not open to a person accused of criminal

contempt and in that view, I am of opinion that instead of convicting the contemners and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment, the ends of

justice will be met if fine is imposed. In that view, I am of opinion that the application has to be allowed and the respondents are found quality of

having committed contempt of court by violating the order of this Court passed in O.A. No. 1078 of 1993 and the second respondent is sentenced

to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only). Since the second respondent is the Managing Director of the first respondent, no separate

sentence is imposed on the first respondent.

In the result, the contempt application is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are found guilty of having committed contempt of court by violating the

order of this Court passed in O.A. No. 1078 of 1993. The second respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only)

in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Since the second respondent is the Managing Director of the first respondent Company, no

separate sentence is imposed on the first respondent. No costs. Time for payment three days.