Facts of the Case

Several income tax appeals and a writ petition involving Escorts Ltd., Big Apple Clothing Pvt. Ltd., and Dr. Naresh K. Trehan were pending before the Delhi High Court. During these proceedings, an intervener, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, filed an intervention application which had already been rejected by the Court.

Subsequently, despite rejection of his intervention application, he sent emails and communications to Revenue counsel and directly to the Court, alleging collusion between Revenue officials, Standing Counsel, and assessees. He further alleged deliberate weakening of the Revenue's case, manipulation of records, tax evasion, and concealment of facts.

Although he initially informed the Court that he would withdraw such allegations, he later filed an extensive affidavit reiterating many allegations and reserving his right to pursue them elsewhere. He also sought to retain allegations against departmental officials and assessees on record.

The Court examined whether such conduct constituted interference with pending judicial proceedings and administration of justice. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an intervener whose application had already been rejected could continue making allegations against parties and counsel in pending judicial proceedings.
  2. Whether communications made directly to the Court and allegations against Standing Counsel and Revenue authorities amounted to interference with judicial proceedings.
  3. Whether such conduct constituted prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  4. Whether proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act were liable to be initiated. 

Petitioner's Arguments

The intervener asserted:

  • Revenue authorities deliberately presented a weak case before the Court.
  • Certain material documents and facts favorable to Revenue were intentionally ignored.
  • There was collusion between assessees and government officials.
  • Fraudulent activities and tax evasion had occurred.
  • Deliberate suppression and misleading of the Court amounted to contempt.
  • Allegations against officials and assessees should remain on record even if allegations against counsel were withdrawn.

Respondent's Arguments

The Revenue and assessees submitted:

  • The affidavit filed by the intervener did not constitute compliance with the Court's previous order.
  • The allegations were serious and unsupported.
  • Direct communications and allegations against counsel and parties attempted to prejudice pending proceedings.
  • Such conduct interfered with proper judicial administration. 

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court held that:

  • The conduct of the intervener, including repeated emails, direct communications to the Court, and filing affidavits containing allegations, amounted to an attempt to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
  • The conduct prima facie constituted criminal contempt.
  • Such actions tended to prejudice and obstruct pending appeals and writ proceedings.
  • Proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were warranted.

The Court issued a Show Cause Notice to Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta asking why proceedings for criminal contempt should not be initiated against him.

The Registry was directed:

  • To register separate criminal contempt proceedings;
  • To place on record all communications and affidavits;
  • To annex them with the Show Cause Notice.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that:

  • Even where allegations are claimed to be withdrawn, continuing or reserving the right to repeat them elsewhere may still amount to interference with judicial proceedings.
  • Direct communications with the Court and allegations against counsel and officials during pendency of proceedings can amount to criminal contempt where such conduct tends to prejudice judicial proceedings.
  • Freedom to make allegations cannot extend to acts that obstruct the administration of justice.

Sections Involved

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

  • Section 15 – Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases 

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2015:DHC:1446-DB/SRB12022015CW8362007.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.