Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.D. Koshal and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali

JUDGMENT

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This is an appeal by the contemner under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court dated 27th October, 1978 convicting the appellant under Section 2(b)of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to detention in civil prison for a period of four months.

2. A detailed narrative of the facts culminating in the order impugned is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again except giving a brief resume of the important facts in order to appreciate the points of law that arise in the appeal. It appears that there was a partnership between Sudhir Bhasin and Jagatri Lal Bhasin as a result of which a firm under the style of Sitapur. Theatres with its Head Office at Delhi was constituted. The partnership deed was executed as far back as 19.11.1965 and Clause 25 of that deed contained the usual arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the partners as a result of which an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was made before the High, Court and the High Court on hearing the application referred the dispute to the sole arbitration of a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. Along with the aforesaid application, the respondent Sudhir Bhasin had filed an application for appointment of a receiver as he apprehended that the appellant would misappropriate the funds of the partnership property. The application for appointment of a receiver was allowed and the respondent Sudhir Bhasin himself was appointed as a receiver of Laxmi Talkies, Sitapur. Thereafter the appellant being aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In the appeal it appears that a consent order was passed with the agreement of the parties by which Shri Mahabir Prasad, Advocate and Secretary, Bar Association of Sitapur was appointed as a receiver of the Laxmi Talkies pending the decision of the arbitrator and was directed to run the said cinema after taking possession from the appellant. This order passed by the High Court may be quoted in extenso as it forms the solid basis for the proceedings for contempt taken against the appellant by the High Court:

After hearing the learned Counsel for sometime on previous hearings, a suggestion has been mooted that if the receiver is changed, the applicant would not prosecute the present appeal except to the extent of getting the Receiver changed. We accordingly directed the Registrar to address letters to the District Judges, Sitapur and Lucknow to send names of three Advocates each from whom we could pick out one name for appointment as a Receiver in place of Sudhir Bhasin, who had been appointed Receiver by the learned Single Judge. Three names have been received from the District Judge, Sitapur. Shri S.C. Bhattacharya, President of the Bar Association, is not acceptable because he had been connected with the Cinema in question in the capacity of a Receiver previously. With the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, we therefore, appo........