The second respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Contempt Application No.
The second respondent moved an application, before the City Munsif, on May 9, 1964, for taking proceedings in companytempt, against the appellant and Sri Ajit Prasad Jain, but that application was dismissed on May 30, 1964, on the ground that the present appellants were number parties to the suit.
76 of 1964, in the High Court.
65 of 1966, Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 20, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
The first appellant died, during the pendency of this appeal.
after filing his written statement, he was appointed Governor of Kerala.
Their companytention was that the second respondent was bound by the rules and regulations, of the Indian National Congress, and that they had full right and justification, for expelling him, and removing his name, from the membership of the Congress.
This decision was duly company municated, to the second respondent.
The High Court, in view of Art.
The resolution wound up, by saying that the Working, Committee resolved that any member, who instituted a suit or other proceeding in law Courts against any Congress Committee or Official, did so at the risk of being companysidered guility of gross indiscipline and of being summarily, and without any further numberice, removed from membership of the Congress, by order of the Provincial Congress Committees companycerned, or the Working Committee.
So far as Sri Ajit Prasad Jain is companycerned, it is seen that.
Sri Ajit Prasad Jain, and the appellants, filed written statements, companytaining identical pleas.
His opponent was one Badri Singh.
361, clauses 2 and 3 , held that the proceedings companyld number be companytinued against that party, and hence discharged the rule.
Accordingly, Sri Jain, on April 21, 1964, sent out circular letters to all the District Returning Officers in Uttar Pradesh, expelling those Congressmen, from membership of the Congress, who had filed suits, in Courts, companycerning organizational elections.
That action, expelling the second respondent, they companytended, had been taken on the strength of the resolution of the Congress Working Committee, referred to earlier.
was highly detrimental to the discipline of the Organisation, and its smooth working.
Sri Govind Sahai and Sri Rameshwar Narain Singh, the appellants herein, also sent, each of them, a letter to the District Returning Officer, expelling the second respondent, and removing his name, from the membership of the Congress.
Azamgarh, for having the election of Badri Singh, declared void and inoperative.
132 of 1964, in the Court of the City Munsif.
As a fine has been imposed, against him, in addition to the liability to pay companyts, his widow has been brought on record, as his legal representative, and allowed to companytinue these proceedings.
Regarding the appellants, the High Court held that their companyduct directly tended to interfere with the suit proceedings, pending in Court, initiated by the second respondent, and, as such, amounted to companytempt of Court, of the City Munsif, Azamgarh.
He had also asked for an injunction, restraining Badri Singh, from taking part in the elections, for membership of the District Congress Committee.
They have also been directed to pay the companyts, in the companytempt proceedings.
To resume the narrative, regarding the proceedings, companynect ed with the suit, the application for vacating the injunction, filed by Badri Singh, came up for final hearing, before the City Munsif, on April 25, 1964, when the second appellant, filed an affidavit, mentioning the fact that the second respondent, herein, who was the plaintiff in the suit, had been expelled, from the Congress Organisation.
5001 .
They had further companytended that their object, in enforcing the Circular, dated December 4/5, 1950, was only to enforce discipline in the Congress, and number with a view to render the second respondents suit infructuous, or interfere with the Courts proceedings.
The City Munsif had granted the interim injunction, on April 18, 1964.
At the time, when the election that was challenged, by the 2nd respondent, took place, Sri Ajit Prasad Jain was the President of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee, Shri Govind Sahai was the General Secretary of the said Committee and Sri Rameshwar Narain Singh was the General Secretary of the District Congress Committee, Azamgarh.
In that election.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
They ultimately pleaded that numbere of them were guility of any companytempt of Court.
5001 and also pay companyts of the State,, as well as the second respondent, herein.
After setting out the circumstances, under which he filed the suit, and the order of expulsion, passed against him, the second respondent alleged that the act of the appellants, along with Sri Ajit Prasad Jain, had directly interfered with the numbermal companyrse of justice, by hampering the progress of the suit.
The High Court negatived the defence companytention and held that the officers, who had initiated disciplinary proceedings, were guilty of companytempt of Court.
The second respondent, herein, Sri V. P. Singh, is an advocate, practising at Azamgarh, and he was a member of the Congress Organisation, at the material time.
Contempt Application No.
Badri Singh, on being served with this interim order, filed an application, dated April 21, 1964, before the City Munsif, praying for vacating the order of interim injunction.
Badri Singh .was declared elected.
76 of 1964.
Along with the suit, he had also filed an application, for injunction, restraining the District Election Officer, and other Officers, from holding elections for membership of the District Congress Committee.
He had alleged various irregularities, regarding the companyduct of the said election.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellants.
The respondent did number appear.
That resolution further provided that initiating of such litigation, and securing of ex parte interlocutory orders, against the Congress Committee and Congress authorities.
In view of the fact that the very foundation, for initiating action, vanished, the City Munsif dismissed the injunction application, on April 27, 1964, on the ground that the second respondent was numberlonger a member of the Congress Organisation.
He stood for election, for membership of the Prarambhik primary Congress Committee, of Tarwa, in the District of Azamgarh, held on April 10, 1964.
76 of 1964, finding the appellant guilty, of having companymitted companytempt of Court, and sentencing each of them, to pay a fine of Rs.
dated September 20, 1965, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Contempt Application No.
The circumstances, under which the companytempt proceedings came to be initiated, in the High Court, may be briefly indicated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court.
The second respondent filed, on April 16, 1964, a suit, No.
