Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, Division Bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi,  in a judgment delivered on 13 March 2025, has concluded that no case is made out for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against a law firm regarding the issuance of a legal notice.

The Court, while adjudicating on criminal contempt proceedings initiated suo moto by a learned Single Judge of the Court, stated that “the contents of legal notice read in its entirety and in the context of controversy do not disclose the commission of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

Also Read: Supreme Court : ‘Rights and Duties Are Two Sides of the Same Coin’; Directs Court Masters to Record Only Advocates ‘Physically Present and Arguing’ with One Assisting Counsel

The matter originated from the learned Single Judge’s observation regarding a legal notice issued by Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co. on behalf of its client. The Bench acknowledged that the legal notice was issued when “there were no judicial proceedings pending between the parties in any Court of law.”

The proceedings arose from the suo moto cognizance taken by a learned Single Judge concerning a legal notice issued by the respondent law firm on behalf of the Sawalkote Consortium, comprising M/S Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS), M/S Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., and M/S Ozaltin Construction Trade and Industry Company. The legal notice surfaced during the adjudication of WP (C) No. 237/2024, filed by SPAS, seeking the quashing of the communication dated 06.12.2021 issued by the Executive Director (SBD&C) and an MOU dated 03.01.2021 between Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Ltd. (JKSPDC) and National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPCL).

While considering the writ petition, the Single Judge noted that certain paragraphs—18, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 32—of the legal notice issued on 18.04.2022 referenced a prior judgment dated 01.02.2010 passed by this Court in a manner that was perceived to misquote the judgment. This led the learned Single Judge to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent firm, observing that such references could constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Single Judge directed that notice be issued to the respondent law firm for appearance, and the matter was subsequently placed before the Division Bench for consideration.

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. A H Naik, along with Mr. Rupinder Singh and Mr. Puneet Ganpathy, Advocates, filed an application seeking dismissal of the contempt proceedings on multiple grounds.

The Division Bench recorded that Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as publication or any act that: (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

The Bench found that “the learned Single Judge does not hold the view that the issuance of legal notice by the respondent firm dated 18.04.2022 scandalized or was intended to scandalize the authority of any Court.” It further stated that “the learned Single Judge also does not hold the view that the legal notice (supra) had lowered or had the tendency to lower the authority of any Court.”

Addressing the timing and context of the notice, the Court observed, “Since, in the year 2022, when the legal notice in question was issued by the respondent on behalf of its client Sawalkote Consortium, there were no proceedings pending in any Court and, therefore, the question of legal notice, causing any prejudice or interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, also did not arise.”

The Bench proceeded to assess whether the notice interfered with the administration of justice in any other manner under Section 2(c)(iii). The Court examined the background involving a previous judgment dated 01.02.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in OWP No. 854/2006. That earlier petition had been filed by the Sawalkote Consortium challenging Government Order No. 212-PDD of 2006, which canceled the award of the Sawalkote Hydro Electric Project, directing that the project be subjected to global tendering.

The Single Judge in 2010 had set aside Government Order No. 212-PDD of 2006 and, by implication, Government Order No. 366-PDD of 2005 and its related addendum dated 04.04.2006 stood revived.

The Division Bench reviewed the references made in the legal notice to this 2010 judgment, stating, “It is true, that the contract entered into between SPDCL and the Sawalkote Consortium on 21.04.2001, stipulating rights and obligations of the parties, in execution of the project, has not been specifically upheld by the learned Single Judge.”

The Court added, “However, the fact remains that by quashing Government Order No. 212-PDD of 2006 dated 21.11.2006, the earlier Government Order No. 366-PDD of 2005 dated 21.12.2005 and the addendum issued thereto dated 04.04.2006 came to be revived.”

The Bench found that the respondent firm’s understanding of the judgment was contextual. “The respondent has understood the judgment in the context of controversy in its own way and cannot be called a deliberate and intentional attempt to either distort the judgment or to misquote it to derive undue benefit,” the Court recorded.

The Court noted that the notice was a communication addressed to NHPCL and observed, “The notice was issued on behalf of Consortium to NHPCL and the same was subject to examination and appreciation by NHPCL with the help of its legal experts.” It also noted that “the NHPCL has not complained of having deliberately and intentionally misled by the legal notice.”

The Court reflected on the nature of contempt proceedings, stating, “Bonafide interpretation means an interpretation made in good faith, without malice or intent to deceive, mislead or obstruct justice. We need to remember the contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with utmost caution.”

Also Read: ‘Unjust, Unfair, and Irrational’: Karnataka High Court Orders KIADB to Refund Rs.2.71 Crore with 12% Interest to Power Firm — Says ‘No One Can Profit from Their Own Wrong

The Bench found no basis to conclude that the respondent’s legal notice obstructed the administration of justice: “We do not find that the contents of legal notice, particularly, those contained in Para Nos. 18, 20, 23, 27, 28 and 32 either interfere or have the tendency to interfere with, or have the tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.”

Accordingly, the Court held that no criminal contempt had been made out, directing that “the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed and the rule issued is discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioners           : None

For the Respondents : Mr. A H Naik Senior Advocate, Mr. Rupinder Singh Advocate, Mr. Puneet Ganpathy Advocate

Case Title: Court on its own Motion v. Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co. through its partner Ritu Bhalla

Case No: Crl CP No. 1/2025 & CrlM No. 381/2025

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

[Read/Download order]