Page 1

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.

1

Page 2

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.  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

2

Page 3

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.  

3

Page 4

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

4

Page 5

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  therein  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

5

Page 6

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

6

Page 7

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)

7

Page 8

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

8

Page 9

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

9

Page 10

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

10

Page 11

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

11

Page 12

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.

12

Page 13

ITEM NO.1B               COURT NO.12               SECTION IX (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 4914-15 of 2015 @ SLP (C)  No(s).  603-604/2015

QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT LTD AND ORS                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD                           Respondent(s)

Date : 01/07/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement  of judgment today.

For Appellant (s)    Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR                       For Respondent(s) M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advs.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Abhay  Manohar  Sapre  pronounced  the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and His Lordship.  

Leave granted. The appeals stand accordingly disposed of  in  terms of the

signed reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)                           

13