Case Law Details
Mohit Saxena Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking the release of one gold kada weighing 65 grams and one metal ring weighing 35 grams, which had been detained on 27 February 2024 while he was travelling from abroad to India.
During the hearing held on 28 April 2026, the Court was informed that the writ petition was misconceived and appeared to have been filed with the intention of undermining the authority of the Court. The Court noted that the same gold articles had already been directed to be released upon payment of redemption fine and penalty under an earlier order dated 29 May 2025 passed in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner.
As the petitioner was not present during the initial hearing, the Court sought an explanation from him. On 30 April 2026, the hearing was deferred at the petitioner’s request. Subsequently, on 6 May 2026, the Court observed that the petitioner had acted in complete disregard of the earlier order and had made a false declaration on oath in the present proceedings. The Court stated that such conduct could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
In response to the contempt notice, the petitioner filed an affidavit and appeared before the Court in person along with his spouse and maternal uncle, who was a practising advocate. The Court noted that it was inclined to frame charges for criminal contempt, observing that the petitioner had attempted to obtain release of articles that had already been released under the earlier order and had made false statements before the Court.
The petitioner explained in his affidavit that he had suffered financial losses in business and had sold the gold articles after their release pursuant to the earlier order. He further stated that he had concealed this fact from his spouse, who had been persistently questioning him about the articles. According to the petitioner, this prompted him to file the present petition.
The petitioner’s senior counsel, assisted by the petitioner’s maternal uncle, submitted that the petitioner had no intention of deriving pecuniary or other benefits and that his conduct was bona fide. The petitioner, his counsel, and his maternal uncle undertook that he would not engage in similar conduct in future.
The petitioner also tendered an unconditional apology and volunteered to pay costs of Rs.3,00,000 through a demand draft in favour of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. The respondent’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to criminal contempt and warranted strict action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
After considering the matter, the Court accepted the undertaking given by the petitioner and his representatives that he would refrain from similar conduct in future. The Court also accepted the unconditional apology, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,00,000. The amount was directed to be deposited by 30 May 2026.
The Court censured the petitioner’s conduct in filing such a petition but discharged the contempt notice in view of the apology and undertaking furnished. The costs were directed to be distributed equally among the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account, the New Delhi Bar Association Members Welfare Fund, and the Central Delhi Court Bar Association Members Welfare Fund.
Finally, upon the petitioner’s request, the Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and all pending applications were disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The writ petition was taken out by the petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction for releasing gold articles comprising of One Gold Kada weighing 65 grams and one metal ring weighing 35 grams.
2. The same was detained on 27th February, 2024, while the petitioner was travelling from abroad to India.
3. During the first hearing on 28th April, 2026, it was brought to our notice that the petition itself is misconceived and is preferred with an intention to undermine the authority of the Court which led to this Court passing an order on 28th April, 2026.
4. The basis of order dated 28th April, 2026 is that the aforesaid articles were already directed to be released on payment of redemption, fine and penalty by virtue of an order of this Court dated 29th May, 2025 delivered in W.P.(C) 6232/2025, titled as ‘ Mohit Saxena Vs. Commissioner of Customs’.
5. On the said date, since the petitioner was not present in the Court, this Court with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner and respondent has proceeded to call an explanation from the petitioner in the matter.
6. Subsequent thereto, on 30th April, 2026, when the matter was again listed before this Court, the hearing was deferred at the request of the petitioner.
7. The matter was thereafter heard on 06th May, 2026, wherein this Court has noticed that the petitioner has conducted himself in complete disregard and disrespect to the earlier orders referred above passed in W.P.(C) 6232/2025 on 29th May, 2025, but also has given a false declaration in the present petition, that too, on oath.
8. Such conduct of the petitioner, can be termed as a criminal contempt within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
9. In response to the contempt notice, an affidavit is placed on record by the petitioner and the proceedings are attended by the petitioner-in-person along with his better half and also his maternal uncle Mukesh Kumar Saxena, who is a practising lawyer.
10. This Court was inclined to frame the charge against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act for committing the criminal contempt as not only the petitioner has tried to practice fraud on the court by seeking the release of the gold articles which were already released under this Court’s order dated 29th May, 2025 as referred above but also for making a false declaration.
11. With an intention to give an opportunity to the petitioner before proceedings against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, an affidavit was permitted to be placed on record. In the said affidavit the petitioner has explained the following causes:-
a) That he was facing financial hardship as he has suffered losses during the business and to overcome the same, he has disposed of the gold articles which were released in his favour in compliance the order dated 29th May, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 6232/2025 and;
b) That he has suppressed the fact about the release of gold articles from his better half who was continuously nagging him for not bringing back the gold articles.
12. It is the aforesaid fact, which according to him has prompted him to prefer the petition so as to escape from the nagging of his wife.
13. On the last date of hearing, we have heard the matter, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner who is assisted by the maternal uncle of the petitioner have assured that the petitioner is not resisting to the orders and the approach of this Court in the matter but have claimed that his intention was bona fide and not for drawing pecuniary or other benefits from the respondent/authority.
14. The maternal uncle of the petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession through learned senior counsel so also the petitioner, has given an undertaking and assurance to this Court that in future under whatsoever circumstances, the petitioner shall not indulge into any such act like the one which is reflected in the petition and narrated hereinabove.
15. So as to express his remorse, he has tendered unconditional apology and in response to the Court’s query has volunteered to pay a cost of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) by drawing a demand draft in favour of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court.
16. The counsel for the respondent states that the conduct narrated and noted by this Court in the order and in the earlier orders sufficiently speaks of his intention to commit the criminal contempt of court and he should be dealt with an iron hand in accordance with the maximum punishment to be imposed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
17. Having considered the aforesaid, we are of the view:-
i. That since through the learned senior counsel, the maternal uncle who is a lawyer and also the petitioner who is physically present in the court have given an undertaking to this Court that he shall mend his ways and will never conduct in the manner and passion in which he has conducted in the court proceedings, we are willing to accept such statement as an undertaking to this Court.
ii. We further accept the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner, however, the same is subject to the cost to be paid by the petitioner and in this case, we accept the statement that the petitioner is willing to pay the cost of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs).
iii. The demand draft drawn in the favour of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs), in any case, be deposited by Saturday i.e.,30th May, 2026.
18. We censure the conduct of the petitioner in filing such type of petition, however, we accept his unconditional apology having regard to the assurance and the undertaking taken on record as referred to hereinabove.
19. With the above observations, we discharge the contempt notice against the petitioner.
20. As far as apportionment of the aforesaid cost is concerned, Registry is directed to disburse the said costs in the following manner:-
i. Rs. 1,00,000/- be deposited in the account of D.H.C.B.A. Costs Account bearing Saving Account No. 15530110179338 (IFSC-UCBA0001553), Bank Name- UCO Bank, Branch- Delhi High Court.
ii. Rs. 1,00,000/- be deposited with the NDBA Members Welfare Fund, Account bearing No. 18580110013847 (IFSC Code: UCBA0001858) maintained with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi.
iii. Rs. 1,00,000/- be deposited with the CDCBA Members Welfare Fund, Account bearing No. 33640110020388 (IFSC Code: UCBA0003364) maintained with the UCO Bank, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi.
21. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be unconditionally permitted to withdraw the present petition.
22. As prayed, the present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
