Company Secretary Cleared of Contempt: Supreme Court Accepts Unconditional Apology

The case of Dhiren Dave v. M/S Surat Dyes & Ors. dealt with serious allegations against the appellant regarding contempt of court, filing of false affidavits, and possible disciplinary action under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. However, the Supreme Court ultimately accepted the appellant’s unconditional apology and set aside all proceedings.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Dhiren Dave, was aggrieved by the order of the Company Judge, which directed the initiation of three separate legal actions:

• Prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Possible disciplinary action under Section 21 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner

• The appellant admitted filing an incorrect affidavit but claimed it was an unintentional mistake.
• He filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court on January 8, 2016, offering an unconditional and unqualified apology for his actions.
• He expressed deep regret for filing the incorrect affidavit before the Gujarat High Court in O.J. Appeal No. 30 of 2004.
• He assured the Court that he had always respected the judiciary and never intended to dishonor it.

Key Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents argued that the appellant had submitted a false document and should face legal consequences.
• They emphasized that submitting misleading affidavits should not be taken lightly, as it impacts the integrity of judicial proceedings.
• They supported the previous ruling directing prosecution under Section 195 CrPC and disciplinary action under the Company Secretaries Act.

Supreme Court Judgment

A bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman reviewed the matter and considered the apology filed by the appellant. The Court held:

• The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, were to be dropped.
• If contempt proceedings were to be dropped, it would be unjust to continue prosecution under Section 195 of CrPC or to take action under Section 21 of the Company Secretaries Act.
• All three proposed actions against the appellant were set aside.
• The Court accepted the appellant’s unconditional apology and warned him against engaging in such conduct in the future.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining integrity in judicial processes. However, it also demonstrates that the Court acknowledges genuine remorse and can take a lenient approach when an unconditional apology is tendered.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dhiren Dave vs MS Surat Dyes & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-01-2016.pdf