In our view, once the Notice of Motion is finally decided
on merits in accordance with law one way or the other then the parties to the
Lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse to legal remedies
available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal
or revision, as the case may be, and may also prosecute the contempt
proceedings arising out of the main case, if need arises.
(Para 20)
In
our considered opinion, It is always in the larger interest of the parties to
the Lis to get the main case (Lis) decided first on its merits as far as
possible rather than to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping
the main case undecided. It is more so when any decision rendered in the main
case has a bearing over the pending off-shoot proceedings.
(Para 21)
In our considered
view, when admittedly the order dated 06.08.2013 was an ex parte one
then in such circumstances, no sooner the defendants (appellants) entered
appearance in the civil suit and filed their pleadings in reply to the Notice
of Motion, the Court which is seized of
the main case should have made sincere endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on merits in the light of the mandate
contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code which in clear terms provides that
the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application within
30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted. (Para 19)
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4914-15 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos.603-604/2015)
Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Others Appellant(s)
VERSUS
New Delhi Television Ltd. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted
2)
These appeals are
filed against the Interim Order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition (L) No. 105 of 2013 in Notice of Motion
(L) No. 1553 of 2013 in Suit (L) No. 677 of 2013 and Interim Order dated
31.10.2014 in Contempt Petition No. 29 of 2014 in Notice of Motion No. 488 of
2014 in Suit No. 284 of 2014.
3)
The facts of the
case, which lie in a narrow compass, however, need mention in brief to
appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.
4)
The appellants are
the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.
5)
The respondent
(plaintiff) has filed one suit being Civil Suit (L) No. 677 of 2013 (renumbered
as Civil Suit No. 284/2014) against the appellants (defendants) in the High Court
of Bombay on its original side for claiming the following reliefs:
a)
“a. that the Defendants and
each of them (by themselves and by/through their servants, employees, affiliates,
associates and agents) be permanently restrained/injuncted by an order of this
Hon’ble Court, from in any manner writing to third parties, letters that are
defamatory in nature against the Plaintiff, its management and/or its
promoters;
b)
that the Defendants be directed to issue an unconditional
public corrigendum, withdrawing the letters and e-mails written by it to third
parties. Independent Directors and Regulatory Authorities, and apologizing for
the defamatory actions on its part;
c)
that the Defendants jointly and severally be
decreed to pay to the Plaintiff damages of Rs. 25 Crores, as set out at Exhibit
A herein, or such other amount as this Hon’ble Court seems just and
appropriate;
d)
that pending the hearing and final disposal of
the Suit, the Defendants and each of them (by themselves and by/through their
servants, employees, affiliates, associates and agents) be restrained, by order
and injunction of this Hon’ble Court, from in any manner further issuing any
defamatory letters, notices, emails, etc., in connection with and/or pertaining
to and/or relating to the Plaintiff, its senior officials and promoters;
e)
interim, ad-interim and ex-parte ad-interim
reliefs in terms of prayer (a) (b) and (d) above, for costs; g. for such
further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems appropriate in the nature
and circumstances of the case.”
6)
The respondent in
the aforementioned pending civil suit filed notice of motion being Notice of
Motion (L) No. 1553 of 2013 (renumbered as 488 of 2014) against the appellants herein
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short
“the Code”) and sought ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d)
as extracted above during the pendency of the Suit.
7)
By interim order
dated 06.08.2013, the Single Judge granted ex parte ad-interim relief in
terms of prayer (a) to the respondent. The appellants herein on receiving the
summons filed their detailed reply to the Notice of Motion on 21.08.2013 denying
inter alia all the material allegations made by the respondent. The
respondent, in turn, filed their rejoinder on 06.09.2013 to the reply filed by
the appellants to the notice of motion.
8)
In this way, the
pleadings in Notice of Motion No. 488/2013 taken out by the respondent against
the appellants are complete. However, we are at pains to find out that till date,
the hearing in the Notice of Motion has not been concluded and since the last
two years it is pending for its final disposal on merits.
9)
In the meantime, the respondent, felt
aggrieved by certain communication alleged to have been made by or/and on
behalf of the appellants, which according to the respondent were made by the
appellant in violation of the ex parte interim order dated 06.08.2013,
filed contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against
the appellants being Contempt Petition No. 105/2013 (renumbered as 29/2014) in
the High Court.
10)
In the contempt
petition, the respondent has, inter alia averred that the appellants
have deliberately and willfully violated the ex parte interim order
dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Single Judge under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
the Code in the aforementioned Notice of Motion and thereby rendered themselves
liable for having committed contempt of Court's
order dated 06.08.2013. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellants be
accordingly punished under the Contempt of Court Act for commission of
violation of order dated 06.08.2013.
11)
The Single Judge,
on hearing the respondent, entertained the contempt petition and by order dated
26.02.2014, observed that on reading the averments made in the contempt
petition, a prima facie case for issuance of contempt notice is made out against the
appellants and hence rule be issued against them in the contempt notice making
it returnable on 26.03.2014. It was also observed that these proceedings would
not come in the way of the appellants to prosecute any pending proceedings. The
appellants have filed their reply affidavit to the contempt petition on
24.03.2014.
The contempt
petition is pending.
12)
During the pendency
of this contempt petition, the respondent herein filed one additional affidavit
on 31.10.2014 in the contempt petition complaining herein that the appellants
have again committed fresh contempt by willfully violating/disobeying the ex
parte interim order dated 06.08.2013 and hence another notice of contempt
be issued against the appellants to show cause as to why they be not punished
for having committed fresh contempt of order dated 06.08.2013.
13)
The Single Judge,
on perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent herein on
31.10.2014, directed issuance of notice to the appellants to show cause as to
why action under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act be not initiated
against them for committing violation of orders dated 06.08.2013 and
26.02.2014. The notices were made returnable on 08.12.2014. The Single Judge
also issued an order restraining the appellants from issuing any defamatory letter,
notice, e-mail, advertisement and publication of any nature in connection with
the respondent herein. This matter is also pending.
14)
Felt aggrieved by
these two interim orders, i.e., 26.02.2014 and 31.10.2014, the appellants have
filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
15)
We have heard Mr.
P.V. Kapur, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.A. Sundaram,
learned senior counsel for the respondent at considerable length. Both the learned
senior counsel very ably argued the myriad legal issues arising in the case
some seemingly of public importance in support of their respective submissions.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants also in his submission doubted
correctness of the decision of this Court in Welset Engineers & Anr. Vs.
Vikas Auto Industries & Ors., 2006 (32) PTC 190(SC), which was
relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent against the appellants
contending for dismissal of these appeals. According to learned counsel for the
appellants, the said decision is per incuriam and thus requires to be
reconsidered on the issue decided therein.
16)
Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
consider it appropriate and in the interest of both the parties to defer our
recording of findings on several issues
arising in the case and more so legal issues on which lengthy arguments were
addressed and request the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who is seized
of Civil Suit No. 677/2013 renumbered as 284/2014 and of Notice of Motion
No.1553/2013 renumbered as 488/2014, to first take up Notice of Motion No.
1553/2013 renumbered as 488/2014 filed by the respondent (plaintiff) under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity to
both the parties, on merits strictly in accordance with law. Since pleadings in
the said Notice of Motion are complete long back, there does not appear any
kind of prejudice being caused to any of the parties, if direction is issued
for early disposal of the notice of motion
on its merits.
17)
In our considered
opinion, there is no justification on the
part of parties (without blaming any one) to keep the main Notice of
Motion pending and prosecute its off-shoot proceedings in preference to the
main case such as the one out of which these appeals arise.
18)
In our considered
view, when admittedly the order dated 06.08.2013 was an ex parte one
then in such circumstances, no sooner the defendants (appellants) entered
appearance in the civil suit and filed their pleadings in reply to the Notice
of Motion, the Court which is seized of
the main case should have made sincere endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on merits in the light of the mandate
contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code which in clear terms provides that
the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application within
30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted.
19)
It was not done by
the Court may be due to myriad reasons despite the appellants (defendants)
entering appearance as back as 21.08.2013 in the main suit and completing their
pleadings on 05.09.2013. As a result, the ex parte ad-interim order
dated 06.08.2013 remains in operation.
20)
In our view, once
the Notice of Motion is finally decided on merits in accordance with law one
way or the other then the parties to the Lis can always work out their rights
by taking recourse to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their
grievance to higher fora either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and
may also prosecute the contempt proceedings arising out of the main case, if
need arises.
21)
In our considered
opinion, It is always in the larger interest of the parties to the Lis to get
the main case (Lis) decided first on its merits as far as possible rather than
to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping the main case
undecided. It is more so when any decision rendered in the main case has a
bearing over the pending off-shoot proceedings.
22)
In our view, the
defendant in such case has a right to point out in the Notice of Motion, that
the plaintiff has neither any prima facie case in their favour nor there
is any likelihood of plaintiff to suffer any irreparable loss/injury in
relation to subject matter of the suit, if injunction is declined to the plaintiff
and that no balance of convenience lies in the plaintiff’s favour and,
therefore, the Court should not have granted ex parte injunction to the
plaintiff and even if it has granted then it should now be either recalled or
modified, as the case may be. It is then for the Court to decide as to whether ex
parte injunction granted to the plaintiff should be confirmed or recalled
or varied etc. and if so on what grounds.
23)
We are also of the
considered view that when the issue on merits is seized of by the original
court in civil suit/proceedings and rights of the parties are still not decided
on merits then it is not proper for this Court to probe into the facts and
record any finding on any of the issues arising out of collateral proceedings
such as the one here else our observation may cause prejudice to the parties
while prosecuting their case before the original court on merits.
24)
It is for these
reasons we are of the considered opinion that it would be apposite to request
the learned Single Judge to decide Notice of Motion No. 1553/2013 renumbered as
488/2014 arising out of Civil Suit No. 677/2013 renumbered as 284/2014 on
merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. Till it is decided, we are inclined to stay
the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise. After the disposal
of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedings may be decided in accordance
with law including its maintainability etc.
25)
Needless to say,
since we have refrained from giving finding on merits on any of the issues and
hence the concerned Courts, which are seized of the civil suit/proceedings in
question, would decide the matter on merits strictly in accordance with law
without being influenced by our observations made herein.
26)
We also make it
clear that all the issues which were argued in these appeals including the
issue as to whether the remedy of the appellants lie in filing statutory appeal
under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the impugned orders etc.
are kept open for being decided at the appropriate stage, if occasion arises.
27)
It is for these
reasons, we do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the submissions
urged by both the learned senior counsel nor we consider it apposite to deal
with several case laws cited at the bar.
28)
With these
observations and the directions, the appeals stand accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
29)
A copy of the
order be filed before learned Single Judge in main case as also in contempt
proceedings to enable the appropriate Benches to decide the cases accordingly.
…….….……............................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
…………..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
July 01,
2015.
