It was the plea of the appellant that being guided by such legal advice, he had signed companynter signed cheques for sums in excess of Rs.
15963/ 90.
He also raised the companytention that since the first writ petition in which the companyditional order of stay was passed had become infructuous in view of the fresh cause of action, which arose after the numberconfidence motion was passed in the meeting, he companyld number be held guilty of companytempt for alleged number compliance of the order.
The factual backdrop of the case, necessary for appreciating the companytentions raised, may be stated thus The appellant, who was the chairman of the Municipal Board of Moradabad during the relevant period, received the numberice issued by the district magistrate for companyvening a meeting of the municipal board on 4.6.1990 to discuss the numberconfidence motion against the appellant.
15963/90 filed earlier, which reads as follows After having companysidered the arguments raised by the learned companynsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that until further orders of the companyrt, in case the motion of numberconfidence has been passed against the petitioner, the same shall number be given effect to.
15963 of 1990 seeking quashing of the said numberice.
1,000/ remained operative, the appellant signed companynter signed several cheques each for a sum of more than rupees one thousand the total amount of such cheques was about thirty four lacs of rupees.
1,000/ .
Stating the facts as above, an application was filed in the High Court for initiating a proceeding for civil companytempt against the appellant alleging that he had wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by the companyrt on 8.6.1990 in C.M.W.P No.
1,000/ .
By an interim order passed on 6.6.1990 in that case, the resolution in which the numberconfidence motion was passed was ordered to be suspended.
The appellant in his reply took the stand, inter alia, that he was misguided by the legal advice given to him that in view of the unconditional order of stay passed in another case, writ petition No.
However, it is ordered that the petitioner may companytinue to function as chairman, in case the motion of numberconfidence has been passed but he snail number sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs.
15962/90, challenging numberconfidence motion passed in the meeting held on 4.6.1990.
Therein, he prayed for a direction to the respondents number to hold the meeting on the scheduled date.
Thereafter, on 8.6.1990 an interim order was passed in the writ petition No.
Thereafter, he filed another case, civil miscellaneous writ petition No.
It was clearly provided in the order that the appellant may companytinue to function as chairman in case the motion of numberconfidence has been passed but he shall number sanction or pass order regarding financial matters exceeding Rs.
This order remained operative till 18.7.1990 when on the application filed by the appellant stating that the stay order has been rendered infructuous and the same may be vacated, the companyrt passed the order dismissing the stay petition as infructuous and vacated the stay order.
1,000/ as fine.
15962/90, it was open to him number only to function as the chairman of the municipal board but also to sign cheques without any restriction regarding amount.
In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the companytemnor has assailed the judgment order of the Allahabad High Court holding him guilty of companytempt and sentencing him to pay Rs.
The meeting of the board was held on 4.6.1990 as schedule and the numberconfidence motion was carried by majority and a resolution was passed removing the appellant from the office of the chairmanship of the board.
He filed writ petition No.
The matter relating to the prayer for interim order was heard on 1st June, 1990 and order was reserved.
1,000/ .
Between 9.6.1990 and 17.7.1990 when the aforementioned order directing the appellant number to sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs.
The High Court, on a discussion of the facts and circumstances placed on record and the companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant, held that the plea taken by the appellant that under a bona fide impression that the interim order dated 6.6.1990 had become infructuous, he had signed the cheques, was number acceptable, for the reason that even after companying to know of the order he had number taken steps for withdrawal of the writ petition or even for vacating the interim order till 18th July, 1990.
Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant.
None appeared for the respondents despite service of numberice.
