Hitender Kumar Mehta v. J Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI)

Delhi High Court · 05 Dec 2018 · 2018:DHC:9233-DB
The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao
LPA 482/2018
2018:DHC:9233-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous after the Disciplinary Committee passed final orders, directing the appellant to challenge the order before the appropriate forum and clarifying remedies for alleged contempts.

Full Text
Translation output
$-2.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 482/2018& C.M.No.34472/2018(stay)
HITENDER KUMAR MEHTA Appellant
Through: Mr.J.K.Mittal, Adv. with Mr.Sumit Saurav,Adv.
VERSUS
J INSTITUTE OFCOMPANY SECRETARIES OFINDIA(ICSI) Respondent
Through: Mr.R.D.Makheeja,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
05.12.2018
ORDER

1. Seeking exception to an order dated 27^^ July, 2018 passed by the learned writ Court in Cont.Gas(C)No.551/2018 and order dated 22"''May, 2018 in W.P.(C)No.5563/2016,this appeal has been filed by the appellants in under Clause 10 ofthe Letters Patent Act.

2. In the original writ petition filed which was decided vide order dated 22"'* May,2018,it was the grievance ofthe appellant that the Disciplinary Committee ofthe respondent/Institute is not deciding the disciplinary action pending against the appellant. Now the final orders have been passed by the said Committee on 22"'' October, 2018. Once the final order has been passed,the appellant hasthe liberty to challenge the same before appropriate forum or Court in accordance with law. However,learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the writ petition and the LPA 482/2018 PageI of[2] 2018:DHC:9233-DB 4y* contempt proceedings, various incorrect statements and submissions were made by the respondent and,therefore,action under Section 340ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure for contempt should be taken againstthe respondent.

3. Once the final order in the disciplinary proceedings have been passed on 22"*^ October, 2018, the grievance of the petitioner canvassed in the original writ petition with regard to non-decision by the disciplinary action stands redressed. That being so, now the appellant is required to challenge the final order passed by the Disciplinary Committee,ifso desired. In case the petitioner feels that during the pendency ofthe contempt proceedings or the writ petition any action has been taken by the respondent for which they are liable to be proceeded against legally either under Section 340 Cr.P.C.or under the provisions ofthe Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971 or otherwise,the petitioner can always invoke the saidjurisdiction ofthe competent Court.

4. Accordingly, with the aforesaid, finding the petition to have been rendered infructuous in view of the final order passed by the Disciplinary Committee,the appeal stands disposed of. ijy CHIEF JUSTICE V.kameswaiTrao,j DECEMBER 05,2018 'anh'