Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Escorts Ltd. that in view of the nature of the conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an application for intervention which was rejected, being Intervener Application No. 5779/2008; thereafter engaging in e-mail communications with the Standing Counsel and leveling allegations against them; addressing e-mails directly to this Court and finally, placing on record an affidavit detailing the allegations even while stating that he would withdraw some of them, but would nevertheless press those allegations against the same individuals elsewhere, prima facie amounts to criminal contempt punishable in accordance with law.
Facts of the Case
In this case, one person named Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta filed an intervention application, being No.5779/2008 which was rejected. He had, however, sent an e-mail to counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, levelling several allegations which were shown to the Court. In the course of hearing, the Court pointed this out to Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who stated that he would be withdrawing the allegations levelled against the Revenue’s counsel on the condition that he may be permitted to address arguments in the Court instead.
Sh. Gupta had, in the meanwhile, sent a detailed fax to this Court in respect of these pending matters which runs into 100 pages. The Court had, however, not proceeded with that or made any adverse order at that stage given the fact that Sh. Gupta assured the Court that the allegations would be withdrawn. After the conclusion of hearing, on 09.02.2015, Sh. Gupta filed yet another affidavit titled as “Intervener Affidavit”. In the affidavit, after stating that the intervener informed this Court in the hearing that the Income Tax Department had “deliberately presented weak case”,
