# In Re v. K.P. Seth & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 377
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt Application No. 15 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-re-v-k-p-seth-ors-43161
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Criminal
Contempt-office
bearer
of
Bar
Association-disturbing court functioninguse of defamatory language addressing
cost-held-ex-facie
illegal
amount
to
criminal
contempt-exercising
power
under chapter 24 Rule 11 (3) of High
Court Rule 1952 and Section 34 of
Advocate
Act
1961-restrained
from
practicing for 30 days with fine of Rs.
2000/--in case of default shall undergo
15 days simple imprisonment-apology
not bonafied
Held: Para-20
Besides, in exercise of our powers under
Chapter 24 Rule 11(3) of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, framed under
Section 34(1) of Advocates Act, 1961, we
restrain two contemnors from practising
in Civil Court/District Judgeship, Rampur
for a period of thirty days. They shall not
enter premises of Civil Court/District
Judgeship, Rampur for a period of thirty
days', which shall commence from 23rd
April, 2015.
Case Law discussed:
[2009 (4) ALJ 434]

## Text

1 All]
 In Re Vs. K.P. Seth & Ors.
377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
Criminal Contempt Application No. 15 of
2012
In Re.
 ...Applicant
Versus
K.P. Seth & Ors.
...Contemnors
Counsel for the Applicant:
A.G.A., Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Sri K.K. Arora,
Sri Rahul Sripat
Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Criminal
Contempt-office
bearer
of
Bar
Association-disturbing court functioninguse of defamatory language addressing
cost-held-ex-facie
illegal
amount
to
criminal
contempt-exercising
power
under chapter 24 Rule 11 (3) of High
Court Rule 1952 and Section 34 of
Advocate
Act
1961-restrained
from
practicing for 30 days with fine of Rs.
2000/--in case of default shall undergo
15 days simple imprisonment-apology
not bonafied
Held: Para-20
Besides, in exercise of our powers under
Chapter 24 Rule 11(3) of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, framed under
Section 34(1) of Advocates Act, 1961, we
restrain two contemnors from practising
in Civil Court/District Judgeship, Rampur
for a period of thirty days. They shall not
enter premises of Civil Court/District
Judgeship, Rampur for a period of thirty
days', which shall commence from 23rd
April, 2015.
Case Law discussed:
[2009 (4) ALJ 434]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. Sri Kamla Pati Seth, Advocate
(K.P. Seth) S/o Late Jagdish Narain and
Mohd. Qurban, Advocate on behalf of Bar
Association, Rampur, identified by their
respective counsel Sri Rahul Sripat and
Sri K.K. Arora are present in the Court.
2.
This criminal contempt has been
initiated against two contemnors, Sri Kamla
Pati Seth and Mohd. Qurban, Advocates, and
registered on a reference made by Sri S.P.
Singh, District Judge, Rampur vide letter
dated 4th July, 2012. It is stated therein that
two contemnors alongwith large number of
other Advocates entered Court rooms, raised
slogans, took out Advocates who were
present and working in the Court, forcibly,
and
disrupted
Court
proceedings
on
06.06.2012, between 12.15 P.M. and 1.15
P.M. Report of disruption of Court
functioning, slogans etc. was made by the
other presiding officers of Rampur Judgship
namely, Sri Shyam Lal Kori, Chief Judicial
Magistrate; Sri Navneet Kumar Giri,
Additional
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate; Sri Mumtaz Ali, Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2; Sri
Gyanendra Singh Yadav, Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3; Sri Sita
Ram, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate; Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Additional
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2
and
Sri
Yajuvendra
Vikram
Singh,
Additional
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate etc. Again on
7th June, 2012, such a report was given by
Smt. Alka Bharti, Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 1, Rampur to the effect that at about
1.00P.M., when she was busy in Court, Sri
K.P. Seth and Sri Qurban Ali, Advocates
378
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who were also office bearers of Bar
Association as President and Secretary
respectively approached the gate of Court
room, prevented litigants and Advocates
from entering the Court room, forcibly, and
raised slogans. After lunch, aforesaid
Advocates
again
disrupted
Court
proceedings and functioning.
3. Complaint letters were also made
part of the reference letter of District
Judge, Rampur. Relevant extract of
complaint of Smt. Alka Bharti dated
06.06.2012, reads as under :
Þiqu% vijkUg djhc 1-00 cts tc nSfud is'kh
ds le; vf/koDrkx.k o okndkjh U;k;ky; esa
mifLFkr Fks rFkk eSa U;kf;d dk;Z lEikfnr dj jgh
Fkh] rHkh ckj ds v/;{k Jh ds0ih0lsB] ckn
okgklfpo dqckZu vyh o Jh tquSn [kku dqN
vf/koDrkvksa ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa vk;s vkSj ukjsckth
djus yxs rFkk tkfrlwpd 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
vHknz Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx fd;k rFkk vf/koDrkx.k o
okndkfj;ksa dks tcjnLrh U;k;ky; d{k ls ckgj ys
x;s rFkk iqu% U;kf;d dk;Z djus easa O;o/kku mRiUu
fd;k x;kA ckj v/;{k us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn esjs
i{k esa eu&ekfQd vkns'k ugha gksxk] rks U;k;ky; esa
dk;Z ugha djus fn;k tk;sxkAß
English Translation by the Court :
"Again at 1 p.m., while dainik peshi
being underway, the counsels and litigants
were present in the court and I was
discharging my judicial functions; at that
very time Bar president Sri K.P. Seth,
general secretary Sri Kurban Ali and Sri
Junaid Khan, alongwith some other
counsels, came over to the court; resorted
to sloganeering, used indecent language
laced with casteist words, forced the
counsels and litigants out of the court room
and again obstructed judicial proceedings.
The Bar president also threatened that if a
favourable order is not passed, the court
shall not be allowed to run."
4. Taking cognizance of aforesaid
contempt reference, this Court issued
notice to Sri K.P. Seth, Mohd. Qurban
and Sri Junaid Khan, Advocates vide
order dated 26.07.2012, to show cause,
why they should not be punished for
above act of contempt.
5. On behalf of Mohd. Qurban and Sri
Junaid Khan, Advocates affidavits were filed
tendering unconditional apology, but having
gone through, the Court rejected the same
vide order dated 27.09.2012. Sri K.P. Seth,
Advocate did not filed any reply but sought
time, which was granted.
6. Thereafter, Court formulated
charges against three Advocates vide
order dated 10.10.2012, as under :-
"Sri K.P. Seth, President District Bar
Association, Rampur
Sri Qurban Ali, Advocate, Secretary,
District Bar Association,
Sri Junaid Khan, Advocate.
(i) That you on 06.06.2012 at 10.30
a.m. alongwith some other Advocates
entered into the court room of Smt. Alka
Bharti, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.),
Court No. 1, Rampr and shouted slogan
by using indecent language and thereby
disrupted the court proceedings.
(ii) That you on the same day at
01.00 p.m. again indulged in slogan
shouting, using unparliamentary and
abusive language against the Presing
Judge coerced and also coercing litigants
and advocates to leave the court room
and thereby stalled and threatened to stall
the functioning of the court only because
you, K.P. Seth, solicited favour from the
1 All]
 In Re Vs. K.P. Seth & Ors.
379
above noted Additional Civil Judge in
different judicial proceedings.
(iii) That you all on 06.06.2012
along with other members of the Bar
Association resolved to boycott the court
of Smt. Alka Bharti and transmitted the
resolution to the District Judge, Rampur
and again withdrew it without any reason,
which was also an act of contempt, due to
being instance of acts done by you for
gaining undue favour from a Judge in a
judicial proceedings, which was being
handled by the above noted Smt. Alka
Bharti by bullying her down by the above
acts and threat to boycott her court
The above charges was explained to
the contemnors to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried."
7. Sri Rahul Sripat, Advocate has
put in appearance on behalf of Sri K.P.
Seth, while Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate has
put in appearance on behalf of Mohd.
Qurban. In respect to Sri Junaid Khan it is
informed that during pendency of these
proceedings he is no more.
8. These proceedings are now
confined to two contemnors, Sri K.P. Seth
and Mohd. Qurban, Advocates.
9. Though, aforesaid contemnors
have taken defence in respect to the
charges by filing replies, but, when today
matter was taken up, Learned counsels
appearing for the two contemnors, at the
outset stated that they are not contesting
the matter, but admitting the guilt and
therefore, Court may not look into the
defence they have taken in their replies.
Both contemnors, also stated that being
office bearers of Bar Association when
resolution was passed, they got indulged
in the aforesaid activities, for which they
have no excuse at all but they are now not
putting any defence before the Court, but
admit their guilt and pray for mercy and
benevolence. They further requested to
accept their unconditional apology.
10. On behalf of contemnor no. 2,
i.e. Mohd. Qurban, an affidavit sworn on
7th April, 2015 was also filed, stating
therein that he is not entering into merits
of the pleadings and defence and submits
unconditional apology.
11.
Sri Rahul Sripat, and Sri K.K.
Arora, Advocates appearing on behalf of two
contemnors stated at the Bar that Court may
ignore their defence taken in their replies in
respect to the charges and instead, showing
magnanimity and benevolence, pardon them
and they assure that in future no such
conduct shall be shown. Both contemnors
support what their counsels, stated and
pleaded for leniency in the matter, requesting
the Court to pardon them.
12. So far as question of acceptance
of apology is concerned, it is already on
record that before formulation of charges,
when
contemnors
tendered
apology,
looking to their replies and other
circumstances, Court rejected the same.
13.
Today,
situation
is
that
contemnors, almost have come to the corner
and apology, apparently, means to avoid
severe punishment. The guilt has been
admitted by them, hence, charges stand
proved. That being so, question of apology,
apparently, is with intention to avoid serious
punishment of imprisonment or fine or both,
as the case may be.
14. The question as to when an
apology can be said to be bonafide and
380
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unconditional has been examined in detail
by a larger Bench of five Judges of this
Court in Suo Motu Action taken by the
Court Vs. Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya,
Advocate [2009 (4) ALJ 434] and some
of the relevant observations made by the
Court are reproduced as under :-
"66.
The
ordinary
dictionary
meaning of apology is a speech in
defence; a regretful acknowledge or
excuse for failure. An explanation offered
to a person affected by one's action that
no offence was intended, coupled with the
expression of regret for any that may have
been given; or a frank acknowledgement
of the offence with expression of regret
for it, by way of reparation. (Refer to
Murray's Dictionary). In short an apology
is something written or said in defence of
what appears to other people to be wrong
and is an expression of regret.
67. To apologize, is to speak in
justification, explanation or palliation of
a fault. It is to serve as a satisfaction for
any failure that may have caused
dissatisfaction. It carves out an excuse or
defensive argument acknowledging and
expressing regrets for a fault without
setting
up
any
defence.
The
fault
committed, cannot be reversed but it can
be repented for. An apology is a substitute
which is peculiar in nature and such
character is very subtly reflected in the
speech of Benjamin Disraeli the former
British Prime Minister who said it in the
following words in his speech in the
House of Commons on 28.7.1871:
"Apologies only account for the evil
which they cannot alter."
69. To our mind if an unconditional
apology is tendered, then it should be
tempered with a sense of genuine remorse
and
unflinching
repentance.
No
justifications for the cause are to be
pleaded and insisted inasmuch as, once
such an apology is tendered, then in that
event the guilt is almost unhesitatingly
admitted and an expression of contrition
exhibiting a real mood not to commit any
such mistake in future is indicated. It is in
such circumstances that the court starts
contemplating as to whether the trust that
the court desires and legitimately expects
can be reposed or not.
70. An honest unconditional apology
is normally received by the court with
implicit faith. The faith is diminished if it
is tainted with consequences. However,
unconditional apology, even if tendered
voluntarily and not strategically to avoid
punishment, is no absolute assurance of
discharge. The court has to weigh the
circumstances keeping in view the object
for which such powers are preserved
especially in superior courts.
73. ........ An apology is not a
palliative medicine to mesmerise a court
for sometime. It has to generate a sort of
a permanent belief that the tender of
apology is genuine and is likely to have a
baneful effect. Not a casual or formal
passing of affairs to avoid punishment.
Such an apology with defence raises a
presumption of predominant whim of
contradictions and lacks in sincerity.
74. A suspicious and defensive
approach by the contemnor herself cannot
invoke sympathies or any other equitable
considerations. There appears to be a
barrier of confusion in her about her own
fate which might have impelled her not to
give up her defence. There is no open
commitment to an unqualified apology
and is hedged by desperate attempts to
justify her stand. Inspite of the long
opportunity available to the contemnor
we are surprised at her stolidity for a
remorseful apology. The apology is
1 All]
 In Re Vs. K.P. Seth & Ors.
381
superficial and is only an upholstery with
no sense of depth in it.
76.
The
elements
of
remorse,
repentance and contrition are what can
be described as the life and blood of a
bonafide expression of apology. To detest
the existence of such virtues for judging
an act of contempt, is to deprive the law
of its morality which it deserves and
which is also necessary to preserve the
same. It is like asking to live comfortably
in a room with all its air having been
pumped out.
78.
Remorse
is
deep
regret
experiencing
the
pain
of
a
guilty
conscience. It is self-condemnation. Once
the guilt is realised, then the natural
feelings
of
humanity
that
assert
themselves,
is
known
as
remorse.
Shakespeare with his undoubted mastery
of thought and language has depicted this
at several places in the character of
Macbeth and lady Macbeth, when they
talk of the merciless killings of innocent
persons at the behest of Macbeth. To
quote one such line:-
"I am afraid to think what I have
done;
look on it again I dare not."
15. Looking to the circumstances in
which alleged apology has come forth at
this stage, it cannot be said to be bonafide,
sincere and unconditional. In our view,
contemnors
deserve
appropriate
punishment, though, considering the fact
that contemnors have accepted guilt and
have tendered apology to the Court, we
would
be
justified
in
giving
due
weightage
to
this
conduct
while
determining as to what appropriate
punishment would be, in this case.
16. Before coming to punishment
part, we find it necessary to observe that
of late it has become a regular feature in
the subordinate courts where judicial
proceedings are being disrupted by
Advocates collectively or in the group of
individuals and otherwise by raising
slogans, using abusive language and many
a times creating other kind of disruptions
like breaking window panes, striking on
the doors of court rooms heavily and
preventing litigants and others to enter
Court rooms etc. Virtually, in the State of
Uttar Pradesh substantial period of
functioning in subordinate courts is
getting waste due to such disruption and
obstruction by Advocates.
17.
It is true, that two contemnors
were office bearers of Advocates Bare
Association i.e. they were holding office of
President and Secretary, but, nevertheless
both were Advocates first, and had serious
responsibility towards maintaining decorum
and allowing smooth functioning of Courts.
If collectively, Association of Advocates
took a decision to do some thing which was
not just, legal or valid, it was expected from
them not to become a part of such
proceedings and instead they could have
taken
appropriate
steps
for
keeping
themselves away, instead of becoming part
of such illegal and contemptuous activities
of their colleagues. Unfortunately they
failed in showing respect to the Court and
maintaining its majesty. They took active
participation in doing some thing which was
ex-facie illegal and amounts to criminal
contempt, by lowering down the authority
and dignity of officers of Court in particular
and Court of law as an institution in general.
18. People have lot of faith and
confidence
in
the
system
of
administration of justice with hope and
trust that institution of justice shall come
forward to do away injustice, caused to
382
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them, and would impart complete justice
to them. Where process of administration
of justice is interfered with in such a
manner, the faith and confidence of public
is bound to fade away.
19. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances and conduct shown by two
contemnors before this Court, we award
punishment of simple imprisonment for a
day i.e. till raising of the Court and fine of
Rs.2,000/- each, failing which, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of fifteen days'.
20. Besides, in exercise of our
powers under Chapter 24 Rule 11(3) of
The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,
framed under Section 34(1) of Advocates
Act, 1961, we restrain two contemnors
from practising in Civil Court/District
Judgeship, Rampur for a period of thirty
days. They shall not enter premises of
Civil Court/District Judgeship, Rampur
for a period of thirty days', which shall
commence from 23rd April, 2015.
21. Conduct of both contemnors shall
also remain under constant observation of the
District Judge, Rampur for a period of two
years' and in case, they are found indulged in
any otherwise activity causing disruption etc.
in the court, matter shall be reported to this
Court forthwith. Copy of this order shall be
communicated to District Judge, Rampur
forthwith, for compliance of aforesaid
directions.
22.
The two contemnors present in
the Court, at this stage, stated that they are
surrendering before this Court to serve the
sentence and may be taken in custody.
They also prayed, that they be permitted to
deposit fine within such time as the Court
may direct.
23. In view of above, contemnors
are taken in custody to serve sentence of
one day simple imprisonment and shall be
released on rising of the Court. Fine of
Rs.2,000/- each may be deposited by the
two contemnors within a week.
24.
Criminal contempt application is
accordingly disposed of with the directions
as above.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Revision No. 16 of 2010
Ram Lakhan Gupta
 ...Revisionist
Versus
M/S Taksal Theatre Pvt. Ltd.
..Opp. Party
Counsel for the Revisionist:
H.K. Srivastava, C.K. Parikh
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Shailendra, A.K. Gupta, Chandan Sharma,
U.N. Sharma
Provincial
Small
Causes
Court
ActSection 25-Scope of Revision-concurrent
finding of fact-default in rent-recorded
by
Court
below-word
'rent'-as
per
Section 7 of Act no. 13 of 1972-includes
the maintenance and service charges
also-held-justified-no interference call
for.
Held: Para-26
After careful consideration of the matter
I am of the view that Court below has
correctly appreciated the evidence on
record and its findings on the issue of
default do not warrant any interference
by the Court in its revisional jurisdiction
under
section
25
of
the
Act.