JUDGMENT
Sawant, J.
1. The facts giving rise to the present Contempt petition are as follows :-
One Shri Raymond Uttanwalla was an authorised occupant of the suit premises being Flat No. 16 in Building No. B-14 of New BEST Workers’ Co-operative Housing Society Limited, BEST Colony, Siddarth Nagar, Road No. 6, Goregaon (West), Bombay-400 062. Eviction proceedings were initiated against him by respondent 2, BEST (i.e. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking) under S. 105-B, Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the said proceedings the Inquiry Officer after holding the necessary inquiry, passed an order of eviction against him on 25th August, 1981. He preferred an appeal as provided in the said Act to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, who dismissed the same on the 16th December, 1981. Against the appellate order, he preferred a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution being Writ Petition No. 492 of 1982 on the original side of this Court. This petition was drafted and filed by the present contemner Shri M. V. Holmagi, Advocate, who also appeared in and conducted it on 24th December, 1981 without notice to the other side and obtained an ad interim injunction against the BEST restraining it from executing the eviction order. Since the petition was presented without removing office objections, an undertaking was taken from him to remove the office objection before 12th January, 1982. However, Shri Holmagi did not remove the office objections with the result that on 12th January, 1982 the petition was not numbered and it did not appear on the board for a long time thereafter. The result was the ex parte order of injunction continued. The BEST took search of the papers, found out the reason for the non-appearance of the matter on board and moved the Court on 5-3-1982 for placing the matter on board and gave notice to Shri Holmagi of the same. Thereafter the petition was placed on the board on 12th March, 1982 and the same was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, Shri Uttanwalla again represented by the contemner Shri Holmagi, preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed on the 25th March 1982.
2. After this round of litigation on the part of Shri Uttanwalla assisted by Shri Holmagi was over, his wife, Smt. Annatte Uttanwalla, who is one of the two contemners, came on the scene and filed a suit being Suit No. 2517 of 1982 on 29th April 1982 in the Bombay City Civil Court again assisted by Shri Holmagi. The plaint was drafted by Shri Holmagi who also appeared for her throughout the suit proceedings and obtained various orders therein to which we will make a reference. However in plaint in the suit there was no reference whatsoever made to the proceedings for eviction taken against Shri Uttanwalla or to the order of eviction passed against him therein. On the other hand, the suit was filed for a declaration that the defendants, namely, the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the BEST and their agents and servants were not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff, i.e. Smt. Uttanwalla and in any way to affect or interfere in the right and interest of the plaintiff in the suit premises except by a due process of law and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing, interfering with and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff of the suit premises except by due process of law. On 30th May 1982, a notice of motion was taken out in the said suit for an order interim injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer for permanent injunction. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion, no reference was made to the eviction proceedings and the eviction order passed against Shri Uttanwalla. Shri Holmagi and his client the plaintiff Smt. Uttanwalla, played another trick both on the Court and the other side. Shri Holmagi gave a notice of the hearing for ad interim injunction to the defendant, Bombay Municipal Corporation but not to the BEST which was concerned with the premises and knew of the earlier eviction proceedings against Shri Uttanwalla. The lawyer who appeared for the Bombay Municipal Corporation being unacquainted with the earlier proceedings could not apprise the Court of them, and hence the Court on the 30th May 1982 granted ad interim injunction as prayed in the notice of motion. However, the ad interim injunction was granted up to 4th June 1982. The roznama of the said proceedings shows that although the motion appeared on board on 4th June 1982, the order of injunction was not extended beyond that day. Thereafter the motion appeared on the board on 7th June, 29th July and 2nd August 1982. Contemner Shri Holmagi was present in Court on all these three days. The motion then appeared on board on 17th August, 25th October, and 29th November, 1982 on the last of which dates it was dismissed.
3. It appears further that plaintiff Smt. Uttanwalla again through the contemner Holmagi had filed an appeal being A.O. 354 of 1982 in this Court on the 9th June 1982 and had obtained ad interim injunction against the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff of the suit premises. This was obviously done to forestall the execution of the eviction order since the ad interim order of injunction passed on the notice of motion was not extended by the trial Court after 4th June 1982. However, on the defendant BEST appearing in this Court and pointing out the true state of affairs, this Court and vacated the injunction on the 1st July 1982 and the appeal against order itself was dismissed on 5th July 1982. On both the 1st and 5th July 1982 the contemner remained absent. However while dismissing the A.O. On 5th July 1982, this Court issued the present notice of contempt against both Smt. Uttanwalla and Shri Holmagi, the present contemner on the basis of the facts pointed out by the BEST in their affidavit in which a prayer was also made to take contempt proceedings against both. It may be stated that even in the proceedings in A.O., no mention whatsoever was made of the eviction proceedings or the eviction order passed against Shri Uttanwalla. The appeal memo as well as Civil Application No. 1641 of 1982 which was filed in the said. A.O. for obtaining the order of interim injunction from this Court were both drafted by the contemner Shri Holmagi himself.
4. The whereabouts of Smt. Uttanwalla against whom also the notice of contempt was issued are not known and, therefore, she has not been served. The petition has therefore proceeded against Shri Holmagi alone. It is however made clear that the proceedings against Smt. Uttanwalla will remain alive.
5. In reply to the affidavit filed by the BEST, the contemner filed his affidavit on 24th January, 1983. He has not a word of regret to express there for suppressing the information about the earlier eviction proceedings. On the other hand, taking advantage of the fact that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the BEST, it is stated by mistake that it was the appellant against whom the earlier eviction proceedings were taken, an accusation is made against both the affiant as well as the learned counsel who appeared for the BEST, that they had made false statements and were therefore guilty of the contempt of court. This throws ample light on the attitude of the contemner towards the entire proceedings.
6. The facts detailed earlier show clearly that both Smt. Uttanwalla as well as the present contemner who drafted all the pleadings and also appeared on her behalf in Civil Suit No. 2517 of 1982 and A.O. No. 354 of 1982 had wilfully suppressed from the Court the information of the earlier eviction proceedings against Shri Uttanwalla. This they did obviously with the sole object of obtaining favourable orders of injunction in favour of Smt. Uttanwalla. Were it not for the said fraud played by them actively and deliberately, neither the City Civil Court, Bombay, nor this Court would have passed the orders of temporary injunction as they did. It cannot further be denied nor is it denied before us that both the present contemner as well as the plaintiff Smt. Uttanwalla were aware of the earlier eviction proceedings. The contemner Smt. Uttanwalla was all along residing with her husband Shri Uttanwalla. The present contemner Shri Holmagi had himself drafted and appeared in Writ Petition No. 492 of 1982 filed by Shri Uttanwalla. He had also drafted and appeared in the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order dismissing the said writ petition. Shri Holmagi has not only not explained his conduct but as stated earlier has tried to sidetrack the issue by making unwarranted accusations against the other side. The contemner is an Advocate of this Court and yet feels no compunctions of any kind in playing the fraud on the court. Such conduct on the part of a litigant is reprehensible enough. But more so on the part of an officer of the court like the Advocate. No words are too strong to condemn the malpractice. It is individuals like him who degrade and defame the fair name of the profession and bring the administration of justice in ridicule.
7. That the conduct of the contemner falls within the purview of S. 2(c)(ii) and (iii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is beyond question. The contemner by suppressing the facts had fraudulently obtained from the courts favourable orders and had thus prejudiced and interfered with the due course of the judicial proceeding and has also obstructed the administration of justice. That a false statement made to the Court with a view to obtain a favourable order amounts to a contempt of Court has been held in at least two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Naraindas v. Govt. of Madhya Pradesh it is held that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and thus amount to contempt. In Advocate General, Bihar v. M. P. Khair Industries it has been observed as follows :-
“Every abuse of the process of the Court may not necessarily amount to contempt of Court; abuse of the process of the Court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a contempt of Court. It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the Court may be suitably dealt with between the parties, by striking out pleadings under the provisions of O. 6, R. 16 or in some other manner. But, on the other hand, it may be necessary to punish as a contempt a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression “contempt of Court” may seem to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interferred with. “It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.”
The following observations from the Halsbury’s Laws of England, (4th Edn. Vol. 9, Para 38), have also been approvingly quoted in the judgment :-
“38. Abuse of process in general. – The Court has power to punish as contempt any misuse of the court’s process. Thus the forging or altering of court documents and other deceits of like kind are punishable as serious contempts. Similarly, deceiving the court of the court’s officers by deliberately suppressing a fact, or giving false facts, may be a punishable contempt.
Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fide or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory powers, its powers under rules of court, or its inherent jurisdiction, can give an adequate remedy, it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice, extending its influence beyond the parties to the action, it may be punished as a contempt.”
8. We are therefore more than satisfied that the contemner Holmagi is guilty of the contempt of court within the meaning of S. 2(c)(ii) and (iii), Contempt of Courts Act, and he deserves to be dealt with accordingly. At this stage, Shri Bhagat, appearing for Shri Holmagi, pleads that the contemner is sincerely regretful of his conduct and claims mercy from the Court. He also states that the i.e. Shri Holmagi, has been at the bar for the last seven years and at the time he committed the contempt, i.e. in 1982, he had put in only four years’ practice. He further states than the contemner has a large family to maintain and if he is sentenced, he would also suffer a loss of his Sanad which will deprive him of his source of livelihood.
9. We have considered these, pleas for whatever they are worth. As pointed out earlier, there is nothing in writing from the contemner that he has any regrets for his conduct, although Shri Bhagat says that now the contemner is prepared to give an apology in writing. Secondly, what is on record since 1983 is a justification of the conduct and the tirades against the other side. This conduct on the part of the contemner shows that far from being repentant, he has adopted the present stance only to save his skin for the time being. We are further of the view that regrets or no regrets, such conduct should not go unpunished. It is in the larger interests of the administration of justice that an example be made of such errant members of the professions. Instances of this kind are lately on the increase and the administration of justice is being perverted at various levels in various ways. Some adopt sophisticated methods while others do it in crude ways. Both are equally guilty of the contempt of court and the courts will act wisely to bring them all to book. There is no other way to stop the rot and arrest the degeneration that has set in in the profession and in the administration of justice. Let all concerned know that the legal profession is a service profession and not a trade or business, and the Courts of law are not shopping centres. The administration of justice, if it is to command respect and confidence, must be kept pure at all costs.
10. We therefore hold the contemner Shri M. V. Holmagi, Advocate of this Court, guilty of the contempt of the Court within the meaning of S. 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act and sentence him to undergo a simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the contemner will undergo a further simple imprisonment for a term of one week.
11. A copy of this order should be sent to the Bar Council of Maharashtra for taking appropriate action against the contemner.
12. The execution and operation of the sentence given above is stayed for a period of four weeks from today to enable the contemner to approach the Supreme Court.
13. Order accordingly.