The Allahabad High Court, under the bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, issued significant directions regarding the proper filing of contempt applications, emphasizing the necessity of submitting original postal receipts when service of orders has been made through post.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Ram Narayan Verma, filed a contempt application against the opposite party, Shri Kumar Vineet, M.D., Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow, along with two other respondents. The applicant was represented by counsel Lalendra Pratap Singh. The application raised concerns over non-compliance with a court order by the opposite parties.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the applicant annexed only an illegible photocopy of the postal receipt, failing to provide the original postal receipt, thereby creating ambiguity about the service of the order—specifically, to whom and when the order had been served.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Submission of Proper Evidence in Contempt Cases:
The court scrutinized the procedural lapses in contempt applications, particularly the failure to annex original postal receipts as proof of service of the court’s order.
2. Defect Marking for Incomplete Applications:
The court examined whether contempt applications lacking original postal receipts should be treated as defective and returned.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam expressed concern over the increasing number of contempt applications filed with procedural deficiencies, notably the absence of original postal receipts. In his observation, Justice Nigam remarked:
“It is directed that Registrar Listing will ensure that the contempt applications are filed with original postal receipts, in case, service is effected by post.”
The court further clarified:
– If only a photocopy of the postal receipt is annexed, the Registrar Listing must mark such contempt petitions as defective before sending them to the court.
– The counsel for the applicant, Lalendra Pratap Singh, submitted that the original receipt was in possession of the applicant and could be filed within one week through a supplementary affidavit. Accepting this, the court permitted the applicant to submit the original receipt within the stipulated timeframe.
