Jammu & Kashmir High Court initiates contempt of court case against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh on January 2 initiated contempt of court proceedings against prominent law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) for allegedly misquoting its 2010 judgment in a legal notice. (SPAS v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir).The order passed by Justice Rahul Bharti said, “Para 18, 20, 23, 27, 28 & 32 of the legal notice dated 18.04.2022 issued by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co. (a law firm) through its partner Ritu Bhalla carry and make a misconceived and perverted reference to the judgment dated 01.02.2010 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and, therefore, the said misquoting of the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by none else than law firm is a serious matter to be taken with due seriousness as prima-facie amounting to a criminal contempt undermining the administration of justice and the authority by this Court and its judgment.”.The Court took suo motu note of the issue and proceeded to issue a notice to SAM Delhi to appear in person and explain its position in the context of the legal notice..The order was passed in a petition filed by Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS) challenging a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Corporation (JKPDC) and National Hydro Electric Project (NHPC) with respect to the execution of four projects including the Sawalkote plant (1856 MW). SPAS claimed that it already had an agreement with JKPDC for the Sawalkote plant. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that SPAS did not have the locus to file the writ petition questioning the MoU. According to the Court, a legal notice issued by SAM on April 18, 2022 misquoted its judgment dated February 1, 2010 by suggesting that the High Court had upheld a contract between the Sawalkote Consortium and JKSPDC, while it had not done so. The order noted that the judgment was misrepresented to imply that the High Court had validated the Consortium's contractual standing and declared it "alive, thriving, and binding." The 2010 judgment, in fact, did not address the Consortium's contractual status and was focused on questions of government action and judicial review, specifically whether state decisions were arbitrary or biased..“This Court cannot let escape a matter of serious concern on record of this writ petition in the context in which the judgment dated 01.02.2010 of this Court in writ petition OWP No. 854/2006 came to be misquoted, with impunity, out of context without any factual and legal basis for and on behalf of the petitioner so as to colour said judgment dated 01.02.2010 of this Court to mean something which at no point of time it ever meant or suggested it to be so,” the order said. .In 2006, a Government Order (GO) was issued superseding the earlier orders and mandating the implementation of the Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project through a competitive bidding process.This decision was challenged in a writ petition by three petitioners, including SPAS, Hindustan Construction Company, and Ozaltin Construction, who collectively identified themselves as the Sawalkote Consortium.The High Court, in its February 2010 judgment, quashed the GO, finding that it was issued arbitrarily and violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.In the order passed last week, the Court said,“At no point of its adjudication in terms of judgment dated 01.02.2010, the writ court ever examined or intended to examine nature of relationship between the three petitioners under the cloak of Sawalkote Consortium with the respondents in the said writ petition from the lens of contractual relationship but Mr. Sverre Henning Fjeldstad and law firm-Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co. took the liberty of attributing and reading into the said judgment dated 01.02.2010 of the writ court self-serving claim.".The Court thus proceeded to direct the Registrar Judicial, Jammu to issue notice to SAM and called for its appearance..Senior Advocate CM Koul and Advocates Arshad Hussain and AR Bhat appeared for the petitioners.Advocate General DC Raina and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta represented the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.Senior Advocate PN Raina and Advocates JA Hamal and AP Singh appeared for JKSPDC and NHPC..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.