The Delhi High Court, while hearing a criminal contempt matter arising from a brutal assault on an advocate commissioner during a court-mandated raid, has reiterated that “willful disobedience” must be conscious and deliberate, and cannot be accidental or bona fide. The case, titled Court on Its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors., was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
The proceedings trace back to 2014, when Samsung filed a trademark infringement suit against sellers in Kolkata’s Khidderpore “Fancy Market” for allegedly selling counterfeit electronic goods under its brand name. On December 23, 2014, the High Court had appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to conduct search-and-seizure operations in coordination with the Kolkata Police.
During the operation, Advocate Commissioner Shravan Swamy—assigned to inspect shop M/s Obsession Naaz—was attacked by a mob of nearly 200 persons, leaving him seriously injured, including the loss of teeth. Taking cognizance of the incident, the Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the shopkeepers and others alleged to have obstructed judicial orders.
Several respondents claimed ignorance, absence from the market, or non-involvement in the assault. The Bench, while examining these defenses, emphasized that Advocate Commissioners are officers of the Court, and any obstruction in their duties amounts to obstruction of justice itself. However, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2002) 4 SCC 400, the Bench clarified that contempt proceedings require proof of knowing and intentional disobedience. Acts that are casual, accidental, bona fide, or arising from genuine inability do not constitute “willful disobedience.”
Applying this principle, the Court exempted certain respondents who demonstrated lack of involvement, while holding others guilty of contempt. Those found culpable were sentenced to a fine of ₹2,000 each and simple imprisonment for one night.
Appearances-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Goswami, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Defendants: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Pankaj Balwan, Mr. Saarthak Bansal, Advs. for Defendants No. 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 17 to 20, 23, 25 & 28 Mr. Bahar U. Barqi Advocate for R 10, 11, 12, 13, 21 & 22. Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Karan Chaudhary & Mr. Krisnandu Haldar, Advs. for R-1, 9, 24, 27 Md. Waqar, Advocate for R-26 Ms. Sushila Narang, Advocate for R-29 & R-30 Mr. Amit Ranjan, Adv. for Samsung Electronics & Samsung India Mr. Soumya Chakraborty Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sen Advocate for Kolkata Police
