MP High Court Issues bailable warrant against advocate
Friday - March 31, 2017 5:47 am ,
Category : MADHYA PRADESH
Bhopal: A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice, R S Jha and Justice, A K Joshi on Thursday, has issued bail-able warrant of 15,000 against the Advocate Ravi Shyamnani from Sagar for appearance before the court on April 27, 2017. The division bench has heard the In-Reference (Under the Contempt of Courts Act).
In the previous hearing of the case, the division bench had said that in view of the provisions of the High Court Rules, relating to the contempt proceedings, the contemnor is also directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000 for his appearance before this court on the next date of hearing failing which action would be taken against him in accordance with law. For that purpose he is directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial today itself before leaving the court premises and the Registrar Judicial is directed to ensure that before leaving the court premises he executes the aforesaid bond and ensure compliance of the directions. Registrar Judicial is also empowered to take assistance of the police or any other authority for that purpose. The division bench had listed the case on March 30, 2017 on which date the contemner shall remain personally present before this Court and shall file a reply But the contemnor has not appeared before the court, thereafter, the division bench has issued bailable warrant of 15, 000 against the Contemnor Ravi Shyamnani from Sagar.
Earlier the division bench had framed following charges against the contemnor Advocate Ravi Shyamnani that you (Advocate Ravi Shyamnani) appeared before the Court of Smt. Rekha Markam, Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar on April 22, 2015 at or about 3.15 P.M. in execution proceedings relating to Civil Suit and forcefully and loudly demanded the court to grant adjournment of 3 months and threatened the said Judge that you would lodge a complaint against her and her working in the similar manner as done by you against the previous Judges.
The said act was done by you with an attempt to prevent the Judge concerned from performing her duties. You on that occasion unduly insisted upon the Court to accept the envelope containing complaints made by you against 3 predecessor Judges which was totally unrelated with the matter of execution involved in the case. You thereafter, without any justification, loudly shouted in the open Court in an atrociously discourteous, disrespectful, unruly, unsavory and indecorous manner so as to intimidate the Court and to challenge the authority of the Court in dispensation of justice.
The division bench added that your behaviour was totally unbecoming and unruly and by your discourteous language and conduct you have scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and interfers with the due course and amounts to deliberate interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice. By committing the aforesaid act, you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c) (ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
That, you while filing a written response in the present contempt proceedings i.e. Criminal Contempt have accused and made allegations against the Chief Justice and the sitting Judges of this Court without any basis or foundation or without being supported by any oral or documentary evidence by alleging that they are conspiring against you with a view to prevent the delivery of certified copies/documents to you in the present proceedings in a planned and strategic manner.
The division bench had added that having made such allegations you have also threatened to make complaint against the Judges of this Court again with a view to intimidate this Court and to obstruct and interfere in the administration of justice. By making such allegations you have tried to undermine the lower the authority and dignity of the High Court thereby you have tried to scandalize or lower the authority of this Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and also amounts to obstructing the administration of justice. By committing the aforesaid act you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which are punishable.” The charges were read out and explained to the contemner in Hindi and was also asked whether he wishes to say anything else. He pleads not guilty. His plea was recorded. A copy of the charges along with documents of reference be served upon the contemner.
The division bench had added that looking to the past conduct of the contemnor, Registrar Judicial is directed to make all necessary efforts including, if necessary, to detain the contemner here itself and serve him all the necessary documents of the reference that have been forwarded to this Court by the District & Sessions Judge, Sagar as well as his reply in which he has made allegations against the Judges of this Court today itself. -WTN
In the previous hearing of the case, the division bench had said that in view of the provisions of the High Court Rules, relating to the contempt proceedings, the contemnor is also directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000 for his appearance before this court on the next date of hearing failing which action would be taken against him in accordance with law. For that purpose he is directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial today itself before leaving the court premises and the Registrar Judicial is directed to ensure that before leaving the court premises he executes the aforesaid bond and ensure compliance of the directions. Registrar Judicial is also empowered to take assistance of the police or any other authority for that purpose. The division bench had listed the case on March 30, 2017 on which date the contemner shall remain personally present before this Court and shall file a reply But the contemnor has not appeared before the court, thereafter, the division bench has issued bailable warrant of 15, 000 against the Contemnor Ravi Shyamnani from Sagar.
Earlier the division bench had framed following charges against the contemnor Advocate Ravi Shyamnani that you (Advocate Ravi Shyamnani) appeared before the Court of Smt. Rekha Markam, Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar on April 22, 2015 at or about 3.15 P.M. in execution proceedings relating to Civil Suit and forcefully and loudly demanded the court to grant adjournment of 3 months and threatened the said Judge that you would lodge a complaint against her and her working in the similar manner as done by you against the previous Judges.
The said act was done by you with an attempt to prevent the Judge concerned from performing her duties. You on that occasion unduly insisted upon the Court to accept the envelope containing complaints made by you against 3 predecessor Judges which was totally unrelated with the matter of execution involved in the case. You thereafter, without any justification, loudly shouted in the open Court in an atrociously discourteous, disrespectful, unruly, unsavory and indecorous manner so as to intimidate the Court and to challenge the authority of the Court in dispensation of justice.
The division bench added that your behaviour was totally unbecoming and unruly and by your discourteous language and conduct you have scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and interfers with the due course and amounts to deliberate interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice. By committing the aforesaid act, you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c) (ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
That, you while filing a written response in the present contempt proceedings i.e. Criminal Contempt have accused and made allegations against the Chief Justice and the sitting Judges of this Court without any basis or foundation or without being supported by any oral or documentary evidence by alleging that they are conspiring against you with a view to prevent the delivery of certified copies/documents to you in the present proceedings in a planned and strategic manner.
The division bench had added that having made such allegations you have also threatened to make complaint against the Judges of this Court again with a view to intimidate this Court and to obstruct and interfere in the administration of justice. By making such allegations you have tried to undermine the lower the authority and dignity of the High Court thereby you have tried to scandalize or lower the authority of this Court and your aforesaid act prejudices and tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and also amounts to obstructing the administration of justice. By committing the aforesaid act you have committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) or 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which are punishable.” The charges were read out and explained to the contemner in Hindi and was also asked whether he wishes to say anything else. He pleads not guilty. His plea was recorded. A copy of the charges along with documents of reference be served upon the contemner.
The division bench had added that looking to the past conduct of the contemnor, Registrar Judicial is directed to make all necessary efforts including, if necessary, to detain the contemner here itself and serve him all the necessary documents of the reference that have been forwarded to this Court by the District & Sessions Judge, Sagar as well as his reply in which he has made allegations against the Judges of this Court today itself. -WTN
