# Satya Pal Singh Brick Field v. Commissioner

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 645
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-07-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-pal-singh-brick-field-v-commissioner-40296
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act
1972Jurisdiction to punish for contemptDiscretionary-In view of apologies and
undertaking by contemnors proceedings
for contempt Dropped- Contemnors the
office bearers of District Bar Association
Ghaziabad-Call for strike despite of
supreme
court
direction-held
highly
objectionable-Considering
their
undertakings and unconditional apologycontempt
proceeding
dropped
with
strong warning.

We have in several earlier decisions
observed that if district court lawyers go
on strike then the Judges must sit in
Court and decide the cases even in the
absence of lawyers, and if Advocates
disturb the Court then the District Judge
must call the police to prevent them
from doing so. No one will be allowed to
hold the judiciary at ransom.
 Para 6

However, since contempt jurisdiction is
discretionary
jurisdiction
hence
this
Court is not bound to take action as this
is the discretion of the Court. On the
facts and circumstances of case while we
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
646
deplore the conduct of Sri Tyagi and
others who were responsible for this
incident we are not taking any action
against them in view of their apologies
and undertaking but we give severe
warning to Sri Tyagi and others that they
must not misbehave like this in future
otherwise
they
will
face
serious
consequences. With this observation the
contempt proceedings are discharged.

Para 7
Case law discussed:
(2003) 2 SCC 45
(1995) 5 SCC 716

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Crl. Contempt of the High Court V. Subhas Tyagi, President of Distt. Bar Association 645
clause (a) to (r). Thereafter, sub clause (II)
of clause (r) has made a provision for
determination of quantum of penalty in
case referred to any clauses (C), ..........
It provides that the quantum of penalty
would be, a sum not less than 50% but not
exceeding 200% of the amount of the
amount of tax which would thereby have
been avoided. This Court in the case of
Satya Pal Singh Brick Field Vs.
Commissioner
of
Sales
Tax
1986
U.P.T.C. 1301, in para 17 has held that in
cases of concealment of turn over the
liability to pay the tax on a dealer would
be the difference between the tax, tax as
returned and the tax as assessed. In the
present case there is no difference in
between the tax, tax as returned and the
tax as assessed, as the account books of
the dealer stand accepted and the
reassessment order stands set aside.

7. In the result I am of the view that
no case for levy of penalty under section
15-A (1) (C) of the Act has been made
out. Reference was also made to a
judgment in the case of P.Anand and
Sons Vs. C.S.T. 2004 U.P.T.C. 217. It
has been held in that case that once the
notice under section 21 of the Act is
quashed, penalty under Section 15-A (1)
(C) of the Act cannot be sustained.

8. For the reasons given above the
revision is allowed and the penalty order
as well as penalty proceedings under
section 15-A (1) (C) of the Act is set aside
with costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 2004

Criminal Contempt of the High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
on
the
Application of District Judge, Ghaziabad

...Petitioner
Versus
Subhas Tyagi, President of District Bar
Association, Ghaziabad ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.L. Pandey

Contempt
of
Courts
Act
1972Jurisdiction to punish for contemptDiscretionary-In view of apologies and
undertaking by contemnors proceedings
for contempt Dropped- Contemnors the
office bearers of District Bar Association
Ghaziabad-Call for strike despite of
supreme
court
direction-held
highly
objectionable-Considering
their
undertakings and unconditional apologycontempt
proceeding
dropped
with
strong warning.

We have in several earlier decisions
observed that if district court lawyers go
on strike then the Judges must sit in
Court and decide the cases even in the
absence of lawyers, and if Advocates
disturb the Court then the District Judge
must call the police to prevent them
from doing so. No one will be allowed to
hold the judiciary at ransom.
 Para 6

However, since contempt jurisdiction is
discretionary
jurisdiction
hence
this
Court is not bound to take action as this
is the discretion of the Court. On the
facts and circumstances of case while we
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
646
deplore the conduct of Sri Tyagi and
others who were responsible for this
incident we are not taking any action
against them in view of their apologies
and undertaking but we give severe
warning to Sri Tyagi and others that they
must not misbehave like this in future
otherwise
they
will
face
serious
consequences. With this observation the
contempt proceedings are discharged.

Para 7
Case law discussed:
(2003) 2 SCC 45
(1995) 5 SCC 716

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This matter has come before us on
a reference made by the District Judge,
Ghaziabad.
The
details
have
been
mentioned by us in our earlier order dated
8.7.2004. Today the President, High
Court Bar Association Sri C.L. Pandey
alongwith the President and Secretary of
Ghaziabad District Bar Association (who
had been summoned by us by our order
dated 8.7.2004) appeared before us. Sri
Pandey has placed before us a copy of the
resolution of District Bar Association
Ghaziabad of the meeting held on
9.7.2004 by which they have recalled the
resolution
of
dated
5.7.2004
for
boycotting
the
court
of
Sri
P.K.
Srivastava, A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad. They
have also given assurance that such act
will not be repeated in future.

2. This Court is extremely reluctant
to take action against lawyers as they are
also members of the judicial family.
However, there are limits beyond which
the lawyers should not go. In this case Sri
P.K. Srivastava, A.C.J.M. wrote a letter
dated 6.7.2004 to the District Judge,
Ghaziabad (which is on the record of this
case) in which it is mentioned that Sri
Subhash Tyagi, President, District Bar
Association,
Ghaziabad
with
others
entered into the Chamber of C.J.M.,
Ghaziabad, where, Sri Srivastva was also
sitting. Sri Tyagi caught hold of the
shoulder of Sri P.K. Srivastava and told
him that he must grant bail to Sri M.L.
Rai. This was a highly objectionable and
deplorable conduct of Sri Tyagi. Lawyers
must know how to behave in Court. It is
the discretion of the court to grant bail or
not, and no lawyer can demand that bail
must be granted by the court. However, in
view of the apologies and assurance on
behalf of the President and Secretary of
Ghaziabad District Bar Association that
such behaviour will not be repeated we
are not taking any action against Sri Tyagi
and others who misbehaved with Sri P.K.
Srivastava, but we are giving a serve
warning to them that in future such
misbehavior will not be tolerated.

3. In this case the Ghaziabad Bar
Association had resolved on 5.7.2004 to
boycott the court of Sri P.K. Srivastava as
he had refused bail in a case pertaining to
a
lawyer
who
was
allegedly
impersonating as a High Court Judge.

4. It had been repeatedly held by the
Supreme Court that lawyers strike is
illegal vide Ex. Captain Harish Vs.
Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 U.P.
Sales Tax Service Association Vs.
Taxation Bar Association, Agra and
others (1995) 5 SCC 716, etc.

Apart from the above, the strike by
the district court lawyers in Ghaziabad
was wholly unjustified, irresponsible
reckless and uncalled for. This Court is
not going to tolerate this kind of
behaviour by the lawyers of the district
courts. The people of the State are fed up
of lawyers strikes, which often take place
at the drop of a hat.

In
U.P.
Sales
Tax
Service
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Crl. Contempt of the High Court V. Subhas Tyagi, President of Distt. Bar Association 647
Association
Vs.
Taxation
Bar
Association, Agra and others (supra)
the Supreme Court observed:

"It has been a frequent spectacle in
the recent past to witness that advocates
strike work and boycott the courts at the
slightest provocation overlooking the
harm caused to the judicial system in
general
and
the
litigant
public
in
particular and to themselves in the
estimation of the general public."

5. In the present case the facts as
reported
reveal
that
an
advocate
impersonated as a Judge and enjoyed the
State facilities which are meant for a High
Court Judge. He was arrested and his bail
application was rejected. If the lawyers
were dis-satisfied with the order of the
Addl.
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad it was open to them to move a
bail application before the District Judge,
Ghaziabad, and if the learned District
Judge (or the Judge to whom he assigned
the application) would have also rejected
the bail application then they could have
moved this Court, but taking the law into
their own hands and going on strike on
such a frivolous pretext was highly
objectionable and deplorable.

6. We have in several earlier
decisions observed that if district court
lawyers go on strike then the Judges must
sit in Court and decide the cases even in
the absence of lawyers, and if Advocates
disturb the Court then the District Judge
must call the police to prevent them from
doing so. No one will be allowed to hold
the judiciary at ransom.

7.

However,
since
contempt
jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction
hence this Court is not bound to take
action as this is the discretion of the
Court. On the facts and circumstances of
case while we deplore the conduct of Sri
Tyagi and others who were responsible
for this incident we are not taking any
action against them in view of their
apologies and undertaking but we give
severe warning to Sri Tyagi and others
that they must not misbehave like this in
future otherwise they will face serious
consequences. With this observation the
contempt proceedings are discharged.
---------