COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION  Vs DEEPAK KHOSLA

CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 1 of 9
$~1sb
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.01.2021

+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ….. Petitioner

Versus

DEEPAK KHOSLA …. Respondent
Through : Respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. This case concerns the conduct of the respondent on 28.01.2009
during court proceedings in Co.A(SB)6/2008 and Co.A.(SB)7/2008, titled as
“Sonia Khosla &Anr . v. Vikram Bakshi & Ors.” and Mr. R.P. Khosla v. M/s
Montreaux Resort (P) Limited & Ors.” respectively . The learned Single
Judge found the respondent’s conduct as constituting criminal contempt of
court. The case was referred to a Division Bench. The order of 28.1.2009
reads as under:
“1. CA No. 1000,1290 & 1446/2008 in Co. A (SB) No.
6/2008 and CA No. 1001/2008 in Co. A(SB) No. 7/2008 filed
by the appellants are under hearing by this court. Appellant
has already been heard on these applications and le arned
counsel for the respondents was being heard when the matter
was adjourned to today to make the submissions in reply.

2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 2 of 9
2. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents placed reliance on the appeal filed by Ms. Sonia
Khosla bef ore the Company Law Board and had opened
submissions that the appellant cannot be permitted to set up
case not pleaded in the petition before the Company Law
Board. It was also their contention that the appellant cannot
modify or vary the petition filed o n 13th August, 2007 by way of
filing an additional affidavit about six months thereafter on
30th January, 2008. Reliance was placed on the memorandum
of understanding between some of the parties which was the
basis of the petition before the Company Law Bo ard.

3. The applications before this Court are in the nature of a
review of hearings wherefrom a brother colleague has recused
himself for reasons of scandalous averments contained in CA
No. 1000/2008. It is well settled that consideration of any
applica tion has to abide by judicial record which is placed
before the court. Fully conscious of the well settled legal
position, unfounded allegations before even submissions could
be completed by counsel have been made.

4. The matter was adjourned at request of counsel for the
respondents to today. During the Intervening period CA No.
133/2009 in Co.A(SB) No. 7/2008 and CCP No. 1/2009 in Co.
A(SB) No. 6/2008 have been filed on behalf of the applicant.

5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, th e
applicant insisted on arguing CCP No. 1/2009 in Co. A(SB)
No. 6/2008 and CA No. 27/2009 & 31/3009 in Co. A(SB) No.
7/2008 objecting to the appearance of learned counsel on the
other side on the ground that they have no right to appear.

6. Counsels for the respondents were heard and have drawn
my attention to the memo of parties filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla
before the Company Law Board wherein this company was
arrayed as the respondent no. 1 and was represented by
counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 ,3 and 4 before
this court. Counsels relied on paras 3 to 9 of order dated 31st
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 3 of 9
January, 2008 passed by the Company Law Board at page 60
of Co.A(SB) No. 6/2008. In this background, inasmuch as
counsels had appeared for the respondents before the
Company L aw Board and the present petition in appeal being
continuation thereof, I saw no reason as to why they cannot
continue to complete the arguments in the part -heard matter.
It was pointed out that no such objection was ever raised even
though the same couns el have been appearing in the matter
right from the first date when the respondents first put in
appearance. Caveat is also stated to have been filed.

7. In this background, Mr. Vibhu Bhakru, Advocate who has
been addressing arguments was asked to resume arguments on
the part -heard application. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Khosla
rose and started gesticulating. He interrupted the court
proceedings in a loud voice making allegations that the
counsels appearing in the matter have no right of audience in
the ma tter and that proceedings in this court are not as per
law. All requests to him to contain himself, to resume his seat
and permit respondents’ counsel to complete his submission
did not bear any fruit. Mr. Khosla continued to interrupt the
court proceeding s in loud and obstructive tone and making
allegations against the counsel appearing on the other side in
open court that they are lying.

8. He used insulting language and has cast aspersions on
counsel appearing on the other side. The allegations made ar e
scandalous and aimed at creating prejudice and
embarrassment to counsel who are discharging their
professional duties towards their client. I have been exercising
considerable restraint keeping in view that Mr. Deepak Khosla
was appearing in person. The respondents have objected to his
appearance inasmuch as he is arrayed as respondent no. 11
before the Company Law Board in the petition which has been
filed by his wife Ms. Sonia Khosla as the petitioner and Mr.
Khosla is the opposite party before the Comp any Law Board.

2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 4 of 9
9. His conduct in court today was so obstructive that this
court found it impossible to record the order in open court and
has risen to dictate this order in chambers.

10. The acts of Mr. Deepak Khosla in standing up when the
other side is arguing gesticulating with his hands, raising his
voice and not permitting the proceedings in the court to
continue amounts to interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings before this court, which prima facie,
constitut es criminal contempt of court.

11. Paras 1 to 9 of this order be treated as the facts
constituting the graveman of the charge as per para 10 above.

12. Let a copy of order be given to Mr. Deepak Khosla under
signatures of the Court Master. Mr. Deepak Khosla is hereby
called u pon to submit his response to this order, which is
being treated as a notice of charge, to be responded within two
weeks.

13. The contempt matter may be placed before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate Division
Bench for further proceedings.

Registry shall appropriately register the matter and place
copies of all the orders and applications noticed above before
the Division Bench.

Dasti. ”

2. ‘Criminal contempt ’ is defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of
the Courts Ac t, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’), as under:
“(c) “criminal contempt ” means the publication (whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoeve r which —
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 5 of 9
(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 wit h, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;
….”
3. On 06.02.2009 notice under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 was issued: the order of 28.01.2009 was i) treated as a statement
containing the fac ts, and ii) it became notice to the contemnor of the charge
of hav ing committed contempt of court. The respondent was required to
submit his response thereto by way of affidavit. However, the respondent
never did so, despite the case having been listed for 75 times, over a span of
more than a decade.
4. On 06.02.2009, the respondent had stated that he had tendered an
unconditional apology before the learned Single Judge and was awaiting
orders to be passed thereon. Instead of a reply to the charge of con tempt, the
respondent moved sundry applications and submissions about the manner in
which the contempt proceedings ought to be conducted. The order dated
06.02.2009 reads as under:
“1. The contemnor is present in person. The contemnor states
that copy of the order dated 28th January, 2009 has been
received by him.

2. The order dated 28.1.2009 is treated as a statement
containing the facts as also the notice to the contemnor as the
charge of having committed contempt of court; requiring the
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 6 of 9
contemnor to su bmit his response thereto by means of an
affidavit.

3. Needful be done within four weeks.

4. The contemnor states that he has filed an affidavit
tendering un unqualified apology to Gita Mittal, J. and
requests that it may be clarified that the cognizance of the
alleged contempt committed by the contemnor by the Division
Bench would not preclude Gita Mittal, J. from accepting the
unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor and passing
appropriate orders thereon.

5. We clarify that it would be open to the contemnor to take
such steps to purge himself before Gita Mittal, J.

6. List on 13th April, 2009.”

5. This petition was listed about 75 times, in a period spanning over a
decade. The respondent has filed no reply to the charge. The statements of
facts are lucid and the charge of his having committed the contempt of court
is clearly proven. The charge against the respondent speaks for itself i.e. he
not only used insulting language and cast aspersions on counsel appearing
on the other side but made allegations that were scandalous ,for creating
prejudice and embarrassment to counsel who weresimply discharging their
professional duties towards their client s and their duty as officers of the
court. During the court proceedings, the respondent spoke in a loud voice,
and every now and then rose from his seat and started gesticulating , which
was unbecoming of a counsel in a court of law. He also stated that the
counsel of the other side were lying. This accusation would be a matter of
concern and objection able to any counsel. The conduct of the respondent in
standing up,gesticulating when other side was arguing, raising of his voice
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 7 of 9
and not permitting the court proceedings to continue , was clear obstruction
and interference with the due course of judicial proceedings . The incident
has been recorded by the learned Single Judge .The court is of the view that
this conduct constitutes criminal contempt of cour t.
6. However, on the date of the said incident, the petitioner had drawn up
an affidavit of apology an d he had expressed his heart -felt, unqualified,
unreserved and unconditional apology for what transpired in the Court. In
the affidavit he had also averred that he had orally expressed his apology
before the Court in the post -lunch session when the Court re-convened at
around 3.40 p.m. This apology was tendered in Company Application no.
189/2009 dated 28.01.2009, which averred as under:
“….2. That at the outset, the applicant craves leave
of this Hon’ble Court to formally submit his unqualified,
unreserved and unconditional apology for any offence, or
even the mildest of inconvenience, he may have caused this
Hon’ble Court in the forenoon session of the hearing
today. All statements made by him during the course of
oral arguments during the forenoon s ession were relating
to very fundamental points of procedure prescribed in law,
and were only intended bona fide to assist this Hon’ble
Court in appreciating the extent of the gross abuse of
process of law being repeatedly indulged in by the other
party, a nd were not intended by the applicant to obstruct
proceedings in any way, rather, were intended to assist in
the proceedings go forward lawfully. However, if, on
account of any overly – impassioned plea put forward by
him to this effect, if he had indulged in more emphasis on
this aspect that what was considered suitable or
appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, he humbly and most
respectfully places by means of the present application the
formal tendering of the heart -felt and unqualified,
unconditional and unr eserved apology for his conduct,
and which apology he had orally submitted before this
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 8 of 9
Hon’ble Court today when it reconvened for the post -lunch
session at around 3:40 p.m.
3. That as a matter of fact, this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to start hearing the ma tter today at around 12:20
p.m., and then rise at around 12:40 p.m., and reconvened
at around 3:40 p.m., and immediately upon its doing so,
the applicant, with the prior permission of this Hon’ble
Court to address it, orally tendered his unqualified,
unres erved and unconditional apology for the events that
transpired between 12:20 p.m. and 12:40 p.m. even before
the order sought to be recalled by means of the present
application and announced….”
7. The respondent further avers in his affidavit that the he has highest
respect for the judiciary. In effect, he stated that he promptly realized his
error, that his overly -impassioned conduct was unbecoming. He has
otherwise stated that he was not fully familiar with court proceedings and
the courtesies which ar e due towards all parties and counsel appearing
before a Court . When the said application was placed before the learned
Single Judge on 19.07.2011, the Court noted as under:
“41. Before parting with this order, I am compelled to
note that despite his e xtreme conduct noticed above, so far
as the hearing on the present application is concerned, the
applicant displayed circumspection and, more important,
control in his submissions on the present application
before this court. This fact may be considered b y the
Division Bench while considering appropriate orders on
the present application.
42. In view of the above, it is directed that: – (i) the
Registry shall place the present application before the
Division Bench considering the matter pursuant to the
order dated 28th of January, 2009 when the same is next
listed.”
2021:DHC:208-DB
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 2/2009 Page 9 of 9
8. What emanates from the preceding discussion is that the respondent
got carried away during the proceedings because it concerned the interests of
his family members. He faltered at that criti cal juncture where personal
interest and duty of a counsel to the court, should part ways. He realized that
he had slipped in his professional conduct. He promptly expressed his heart –
felt, unreserved, unqualified apology, to the learned Single Judge when the
Court reconvened at 3.40 p.m. the same afternoon. He expressed his regret
at not having exercised due caution. He has tendered his unqualified and
unreserved apology before this Court as well. He emphasizes that a lawyer is
an officer of the Court fir st, and the role should always be discharged with
due responsibility.
9. The court is of the view that the respondent’s apology was prompt,
unreserved and unqualified. His contrition is evident. Interests of justice
will be served by accepting the apolo gy. It is accepted so. The petition is
disposed -off in the above terms.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J .
JANUARY 18, 2021
sb
2021:DHC:208-DB