'Bonafide Interpretation Of Judgment, Though Wrong, Not Contempt': J&K&L High Court Closes Contempt Against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that interpretation of a Court judgment, even if differing from Court's intended meaning, generally does not constitute Contempt of Court as long as the interpretation is not wilfully or deliberately wrong, and does not obstruct course of justice.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi held that the legal notice by the respondent firm, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, which had allegedly misquoted the judgment did not interfere or have the tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.

The court said that respondent has understood the judgment in the context of controversy in its own way and it could not be said that said act was deliberate misquoting of it for gaining undue benefits.

The court held that the impugned legal notice read in its entirety and in the context of controversy do not disclose the commission of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The court added that the jurisdiction invoking contempt is special one and must be excercised sparingly and with due caution.

The court also said that the impugned legal notice was in the form of communication from one legal firm to another that too at the time when no litigation was pending in any court of law.

It added that NHPCL, to whom the said legal notice was addressed, had not complained of having been deliberately and intentionally misled by the said legal notice.

BACKGROUND:

The case arose from a suo moto criminal contempt action initiated by the High Court based on a legal notice issued by the respondent law firm, Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. The legal notice was issued on behalf of Sawalkote Consortium, which was involved in a legal dispute concerning the Sawalkote Hydro Electric Project. The notice allegedly misrepresented and misquoted a Judgment passed by a Single Judge of the High Court.

The Single Judge concluded that the law firm had deliberately distorted the judgment to mislead the parties involved, exposing itself to potential contempt proceedings. The court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and issued a notice to the respondent firm, requiring an explanation.

APPEARANCE

None For Petitioners

A H Naik, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate & Mr. Puneet Ganpathy, Advocate For Respondents.

Case-Title: Court on its own motions vs Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co. 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order