Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against an order dated 24th April 2007 passed by a single judge of the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007 arising out of Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2004. The appellants, Jayesh M. Gandhi and Vinay D. Balse, challenged the order which held them guilty of contempt for failing to provide an additional facility to employees as directed by the court. The respondents, including Yogendra N. Thakkar and others, had sought compliance with the court's earlier orders. The appellants defended themselves by arguing that the additional facility was unnecessary and that they were merely extending it as a gesture. However, the court noted that neither in the affidavit in reply nor in the endorsement on the voucher did the appellants state that they had refused to sign or provide the facility. The single judge recorded that the defence of unnecessary expenditure was not sufficient to justify non-compliance. The division bench, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of contempt. The court emphasized that willful disobedience of court orders cannot be excused on the ground of perceived necessity. The judgment was delivered on 31st January 2017 by a bench comprising Justice Anoop V. Mohta and Justice P. R. Bora.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Additional Facility - The appellants were directed to provide additional facility to employees; they failed to do so, claiming it was unnecessary. The court held that the defence of unnecessary expenditure does not justify non-compliance with a court order, and the failure to sign vouchers or provide the facility amounts to willful disobedience. (Paras 2-3)
B) Arbitration - Interim Orders - Compliance - The dispute arose from an arbitration petition where interim orders were passed regarding employee facilities. The court found that the appellants' conduct in not providing the facility and not signing vouchers constituted contempt. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants' failure to provide additional facility to employees as directed by the court amounts to willful disobedience and contempt of court.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 24th April 2007 passed in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007 is upheld.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Willful Disobedience
- Additional Facility
- Office Equipment
- Arbitration
- Appeal against Contempt Order
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (01) 5
Appeal No. 369 of 2007 in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007 in Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2004 with Notice of Motion No. 2137 of 2007 in Appeal No. 369 of 2007
Anoop V. Mohta, P. R. Bora
Mr. Gauraj Shah i/by Kanga & Co. for the Appellants; Ms. Priyanka Kothari a/w. Ms. Neha Bhatt i/by Bilawala & Co. for Respondent No.1
Jayesh M. Gandhi and Vinay D. Balse
Yogendra N. Thakkar, Mahendra N. Thakkar, Sujal A. Shah, S. N. Shivkumar, B.L. Bhanu, Bank of Baroda (Fort Branch), Bank of Baroda (Worli Branch), Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., UTI Bank Limited, Vijaya Bank, Bank of Baroda (Hauz Khas Branch)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order in contempt petition arising from arbitration proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to challenge the order dated 24th April 2007 passed in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007, which held them guilty of contempt.
Filing Reason
The appellants failed to provide additional facility to employees as directed by the court, leading to contempt proceedings.
Previous Decisions
The learned single judge of this Court passed an order on 24th April 2007 in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007, recording that the appellants' defence of unnecessary expenditure was not sufficient and that they had not refused to sign the voucher or provide the facility.
Issues
Whether the appellants' failure to provide additional facility to employees amounts to willful disobedience of court orders and contempt of court.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the additional facility was unnecessary and they were merely extending it as a gesture.
The respondents contended that the appellants failed to comply with the court's order and did not sign the voucher.
Ratio Decidendi
Willful disobedience of a court order cannot be excused on the ground that the directed action was unnecessary; failure to provide the directed facility and refusal to sign vouchers constitute contempt.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard finally by consent.
The Appellants have challenged order dated 24th April, 2007 passed in Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007 whereby the learned single Judge of this Court, after considering the affidavits and other material on record, has ultimately recorded as under :
There defence is that the petitioners were extending additional facility to the employees which according to them was not necessary. Now, additional facility to be provided to the employees can also be merely office equipment. In any case, neither in the affidavit in reply nor in the endorsement on the voucher, it is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they have refused to sign
Procedural History
The matter originated from Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2004, wherein interim orders were passed. A contempt petition (No. 01 of 2007) was filed alleging willful disobedience. The single judge passed the impugned order on 24th April 2007. The appellants filed the present appeal (No. 369 of 2007) against that order. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the division bench on 31st January 2017.
