Delhi High Court: A contempt case was filed against the order dated 28-10-2024 passed by a Single Judge in a criminal case filed by Hero Moto Corp. challenging the order dated 19-07-2023 passed in complaint case wherein the Judicial Magistrate directed registration of FIR against the petitioner filed on 21-07-2024, by the contemnor respondent herein who was a director of Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (‘BLPL’). A division bench of Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., sentenced the respondent to two weeks of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 07 days considering that his frivolous allegations against the Court as also the Registry of the Delhi High Court with respect to listing matters is completely baseless and if ignored, would over a period of time lead to erosion of faith in the well-established and fair systems and procedures of the Court.
The dispute between Hero MotoCorp Ltd. (formerly Hero Honda Motors Ltd.) and Brains Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (BLPL) arose from a jobs contract dated 1-10-2001, which was terminated in March 2010 due to deteriorating relations. BLPL invoked an arbitration clause, resulting in the appointment of Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator in 2012. The Arbitrator awarded BLPL a sum of ₹70,00,000 with interest in 2018, which was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. This contractual disagreement led to a series of criminal allegations and FIRs by BLPL against Hero MotoCorp, accusing it of forgery, document fabrication, and Provident Fund-related misconduct. BLPL’s complaint resulted in a Karkardooma Magistrate’s order to register an FIR, which Hero MotoCorp challenged in the Delhi High Court. The Court issued an interim stay on the FIR registration, sparking further allegations and procedural conflicts.
Following the stay order, BLPL raised accusations of forum shopping, procedural improprieties, and manipulation of the court registry by Hero MotoCorp. These allegations were formalized in an undated legal notice sent by BLPL’s representatives, which criticized the listing process, and court registry, allegations against judges and questioned the conduct of the case and further getting it published online. Hero MotoCorp responded by placing the notice and email correspondence before the Court, leading to further procedural scrutiny. The sequence of events and allegations prompted the Court to initiate a suo motu contempt petition. In light of the persistent allegations, procedural concerns, and disputes surrounding the handling of the matter, the Court, on its own motion, deemed it necessary to file the present petition to address the issues comprehensively.
The Court noted that his company BLPL has filed multifarious cases in various forums including criminal complaints against HML, its directors and its promoters. There are primarily three allegations made by BLPL and the respondent in the legal notice against the Court, firstly that the mentioning could not have been done in DB-II, secondly, that the mentioning was allowed “subject to office objections” and therefore, the Registry ought to have ensured that all objections are cleared and could not have listed the matter without the clearance of all objections, and lastly that the Registry could not have listed the matter in Court 30 by presuming that the matter was connected to Vijay Srivastava v State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6891. The Court stated that all the allegations made by respondent and BLPL as also his counsels, are completely incorrect.
The Court further observed that the allegation made in the legal notice to the contrary, that all objections had to be removed prior to listing, was false to the knowledge of both the lawyers and the client. The allegation in the legal notice was clearly to scandalize the Court and the Registry and also to raise unnecessary doubts as to the functioning of the Court. Moreover, even if the allegations are not direct, allusions to wrongdoing by the Court or the Registry, which is clear from the legal notice, would also not be permissible.
The Court remarked that “The language in the legal notice completely scandalises the Court and raises baseless allegations and aspersions against the administration of justice by the Court by raising doubts about the functioning of the Registry of this Court. In any case, after issuance of the legal notice, special and deliberate attempts have been made either by the lawyers or the litigant to get it published in online platforms. The Journalist has tendered an unconditional apology. However, the fact remains that the said notice was published on the ‘X’ (former Twitter) platform of the media handle. Without any verification of facts, the notice was clearly leaked by the respondent and BLPL not only with an intent to cause damage and harm to the reputation of HML but with a clear intent to also lower the dignity of the Court amongst the public”
The Court concluded that insofar as the counsels of respondents are concerned, they have not merely misadvised their client but have also expressed least remorse even during the hearings. Their legal notice did not comply with the required conditions of giving the name of the counsel, the bar council registration number, the date of the notice, the website, the name of the other lawyers working in the firm, etc., none of it is mentioned in the legal notice. Such strategies are usually adopted by lawyers to insulate themselves from any action while shooting in the dark and make wild allegations. Therefore, the Court referred the matter to Bar Council of Delhi for initiating disciplinary proceedings which shall be decided in accordance with law
Thus, the Court held that the respondent is in the habit of making allegations against Courts, judges and counsels and the offending conduct is therefore not an error or mistaken advice but is done with deliberate and with ulterior motives. The apology is thus not bonafide.
[Court on its own motion v. Roop Darshan Pandey, CONT.CAS. (CRL) 13/2024, decided on 23-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv, Mr. Dayan Krishnan Sr. Adv, Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Ms. Devika Mohan, Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Manavi Agarwal, Ms. Kashish Mathur, Ms. Minal Kaushik, Ms. Sanjana Nair and Mr. Rishu Kant Sharma, Advocates for Vijay Srivastava.
Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey in person. Ms. Anjali Sisodia for Ms. Neha Jain. Mr. Deepak Dahiya, Advocate. Mr. Atul Krishna, Journalist alongwith Mr. Advait Ghosh, Advocate for The New Indian.