QUANTUM SECURITIES PVT LTD Vs NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD
Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-004914-004915 / 2015
Diary number: 39488 / 2014
Advocates: GAGAN GUPTA Vs
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