2011 (5) TMI 963 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants in Contempt for Misleading Tribunal; Referred to High Court for Proceedings

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI found the appellants guilty of misleading the Tribunal by seeking adjournment on false grounds, constituting contempt ... Misleading the Tribunal - interference in the administration of justice - contempt by seeking adjournment on false grounds - show cause notice for contempt reference - discharge of advocate from representationDischarge of advocate from representation - Advocate A.P. Kolte was discharged from representing the appellants in the matter. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted the advocate's submission that he had earlier sought to withdraw appearance and, in light of his statement and the circumstances surrounding the adjournment application, allowed his discharge from the matter. The Registry and record show that counsel had informed the Tribunal of his non-availability and a successor counsel sought time to take instructions; on that footing the advocate was discharged. [Paras 1, 2]Advocate A.P. Kolte is discharged from the matter.Misleading the Tribunal - interference in the administration of justice - contempt by seeking adjournment on false grounds - show cause notice for contempt reference - The appellants sought adjournment on a false ground, amounting to misleading the Tribunal and warranting a reference to the High Court for contempt, subject to a show-cause opportunity. - HELD THAT: - On review of the record, the Tribunal found that the adjournment was obtained by a letter stating that the advocate had undergone bypass surgery and was on bed rest, whereas the advocate had, according to his own submissions, resumed work earlier; this established that the appellants had misled the Tribunal. The Tribunal regarded seeking adjournment on such false grounds as interference with administration of justice and a contemptuous act. While the Tribunal considered the matter fit for reference to the High Court for contempt proceedings, it granted the appellants an opportunity to explain themselves before any reference is made, directing them to file an explanation within 15 days and issuing notice returnable on 16-6-2011. [Paras 2]Appellants to show cause within 15 days as to why the matter should not be referred to the High Court for contempt; notice issued and returnable on 16-6-2011.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal discharged the advocate from the matter and, having found that the appellants procured an adjournment on false grounds amounting to misleading the Tribunal and potential contempt, directed the appellants to submit an explanation within 15 days and issued notice returnable on 16-6-2011 pending consideration of a reference to the High Court for contempt proceedings. Issues: Misleading the Tribunal by seeking adjournment on false grounds, Contempt of court, Reference to High Court for contempt proceedingsIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue at hand revolves around the misleading actions of the appellants in seeking an adjournment based on false grounds. The advocate representing the appellants initially cited health reasons for adjournment, claiming to have undergone a bye-pass surgery and advised bed rest. However, investigations revealed that the advocate had resumed work a year prior, indicating a misleading attempt by the appellants. The Tribunal deemed this behavior as interference in the administration of justice, constituting contempt of court. The Tribunal highlighted that seeking adjournment on false grounds is a serious offense, supported by established legal precedents from the Apex Court and Bombay High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal considered it a suitable case for reference to the High Court for necessary contempt proceedings against the appellants. Despite this, the appellants were granted an opportunity to provide an explanation within 15 days before any decision on the reference to the High Court. The advocate initially representing the appellants was discharged from the matter, and a notice was issued for the appellants to appear before the Tribunal to address the contemptuous act. The matter was adjourned until the appellants could present their case, ensuring due process was followed before any further actions were taken.