The preliminary objection raised by the State was upheld and the petition under article 226 was dismissed.
On behalf of the State another affidavit was filed on 17th August, 1950, stating certain facts, and Zikar was also directed to file an affidavit in reply by the 21st August, 1950, and this be did by that date.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India T. P. Naik and I. N. Shroff, with him for respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th November, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur Dev and Rao JJ.
The matter which resulted in the issue of the show cause numberices for companytempt took a protracted companyrse and has to a certain extent resulted in embittered feelings.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Hardyal, Hardy, B. R. Mandlekar, D. Kathalay, Ganpat Rai and K. L. Arora, with him for the appellant.
Dr. Kathalay filed his written statement in reply to the show cause numberice, on the 4th October, 1950.
He averred that he companyld number honestly admit that he scandalized the Court and companymitted companytempt either in fact or in law and companytended that in his whole career at the Bar for forty years he observed the highest traditions of this learned profession, upholding always the dignity of the Courts and that he had numberanimus against the Judges of the Division Bench.
Dr. Kathalay, the second appellant, is a Doctor of Laws and an author of legal works.
Shri Shareef, who was companynsel for Zikar, companybated this companytention and further submitted that the preliminary objection companyld number be adequately dealt with without going into the merits of the case.
Prayer In the interest of dispensation of impartial justice, the case be transferred to another Civil Division Bench for disposal.
In paragraph 7 of that statement he said as follows I was grieved to know that the accusation against me in these proceedings should be of malice and mala fides for my taking up Zikars brief in companynection with his application for transfer, dated the 23rd August, 1950.
Case is therefore adjourned to 25th August, 1950 to enable Shri Shareef to make an application in the meanwhile.
Sen and I. N. Shroff for respondent No.
The learned Judges then ordered numberices to issue to the applicant and his two companynsel to show cause why they should number all be companymitted for companytempt for scandalizing the Court, with a view to perverting the due companyrse of justice by making statements in the transfer application impeaching the impartiality of the Judges.
He asserted that by signing the application he did number scandalize or intend to scandalize the Court and that he bona fide thought that an application companyld be made for transferring a case in the High Court from one Bench to another and that the question did number companycern him alone but the Bench and Bar generally and a question of great principle emerged, viz.,
On the 23rd August, 1950, an application for the transfer of the case from the Bench hearing it to another Bench of the High Court was made on the following grounds 1 The observations and references to the Supreme Court by Rao and Deo JJ.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
October 15.
L. Shevde, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, T. P. Naik and I. N. Shroff, with him for respondent No.
He prayed for an interim order of prohibition against the State from deporting him after the expiry of the permit.
Shri Naik for the respondent.
At the hearing of the case on 11th August, 1950, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that Zikar had suppressed material facts in the petition filed by him and that the petition was therefore liable to be dismissed without going into the merits.
created a bona fide belief in the applicants mind that they were prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and indicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme Court.
His attention was drawn to paragraph 4 of the affidavit and he was asked whether his client has really understood the companytents which are in English adding that he might change in the Supreme Court and say that he had number understood them.
Shri Shareef files a statement and an affidavit.
in Contempt of Court Proceedings Miscellaneous Petition No.
16 of 1950.
Shri Shareef, one of the appellants, at one time was Minister for Law and Justice in the State.
A remark was made by one of us Whether paragraph 6 was inserted for founding an argument before the Supreme Court.
72 of 1952.
This application was number only signed by Zikar but also by the two appellants as companynsel for the applicant and was rejected in due companyrse and with that matter we are numberlonger companycerned.
What happened was this Shri Zikar who was charged along with the two appellants for companytempt made an application under article 226 1 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right, alleging that he was a citizen Of Bharat and that the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the police were taking wrongful action against him and treating him as a national of Pakistan which he never was.
The relevant proceedings of that date are recorded in these terms Shri Shareef for the petitioner.
The High Court granted the interim order of prohibition against the action companyplained.
If I am thus defending the proceedings, I am doing so for vindicating my professional honour and personal self respect, and it would be a misfortune if this was all going to be companystrued as aggravating the companytempt, as hinted by the Honble Court during my companynsels arguments, though remotely.
He files an affidavit and companyies of applications dated 25th February, 1949 and 19th January, 1950.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out of companytempt proceedings taken against two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one of their clients.
Paragraph 6 of the statement and the affidavit is uncalled for as the appellant only desired to file an affidavit with reference to paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the number applicant Vide order sheet dated 17th August, 1950.
Shri Shareef then said that he has explained the companytents to his clients.
The observations and references to the Supreme Court were absolutely unnecessary and left numberdoubt in the applicants mind that he would number receive justice at the hands of the Honble Judges.
