Case Title: Court on its Own Motion Vs. Nitin Bansal
Case Number: CONT.CAS. (CRL) 16/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:—
Date of Decision: 29th October, 2025
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
---
Factual Background
The case originated from a civil dispute titled Bina & Ors. v. Ashok Bansal, where an interim injunction was granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court restrained Mr. Ashok Bansal from dealing with or disposing of 30,000 tons of industrial coal and from alienating assets of the partnership firm M/s G&G Concrete Solutions.
Despite the order dated 31st May 2024, allegations surfaced that Mr. Ashok Bansal was violating the injunction by continuing to dispose of the coal. Consequently, an application was filed seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the site and report the ground situation. On 12th July 2024, the Court appointed Advocate Ms. Nandini Bali as Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of M/s G&G Concrete Solutions located in Bhupani, Faridabad, Haryana, directing full cooperation and allowing requisition of police assistance for enforcement.
On 13th July 2024, the Local Commissioner, accompanied by police officers, reached the site. During the inspection, Mr. Nitin Bansal, son of Mr. Ashok Bansal, arrived and displayed a hostile and intimidating attitude. The Local Commissioner’s report later recorded that Mr. Nitin Bansal not only refused to cooperate but also placed a pistol on the table in front of her to threaten and obstruct the ongoing commission. The police seized the weapon as it appeared to be unlicensed.
The Local Commissioner’s report dated 17th September 2024 detailed the incident and the intimidating behavior, concluding that Mr. Nitin Bansal’s conduct amounted to deliberate obstruction of judicial proceedings.
---
Procedural History
Upon receiving the Local Commissioner’s report, the Single Judge, by order dated 28th October 2024, referred the matter to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, observing prima facie interference with the administration of justice under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act.
Pursuant to this reference, Court on its Own Motion v. Nitin Bansal was registered as CONT.CAS. (CRL) 16/2024. On 9th December 2024, notice was issued to the Contemnor to show cause why action for contempt should not be taken.
In his reply, Nitin Bansal denied all allegations, claiming he had cooperated during the inspection and that the object on the table was merely a toy gun used to scare animals. He asserted his innocence, stating that he was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record.
To ascertain the truth, the Court, on 21st February 2025, directed the SHO of P.S. Bhupani, Faridabad to file a status report and produce the seized weapon. On 28th May 2025, the gun was produced in court by ASI Samsher Singh. Upon physical inspection, the Bench noted that the gun was not a toy gun but a real air gun.
Final arguments were heard on 8th September 2025. While Nitin Bansal maintained his innocence, his senior counsel tendered an unconditional apology on his behalf. The matter was reserved for judgment and pronounced on 29th October 2025.
---
Core Legal Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether Nitin Bansal’s conduct in threatening a court-appointed Local Commissioner with a weapon during execution of judicial orders constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether his subsequent claim that the weapon was a toy gun mitigated his liability.
---
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
The Bench began by explaining the scope of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, emphasizing that any act that interferes with, or obstructs, the administration of justice qualifies as criminal contempt. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, which held that contempt jurisdiction safeguards the authority of the courts — the ultimate protector of citizens’ rights. The Supreme Court clarified that punishment for contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The conduct must be “wilful”, intentional, and done with full knowledge of its likely consequences.
The Court further referred to Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, reiterating that contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts, without which the democratic fabric of society would collapse.
Applying these principles, the Bench observed that Nitin Bansal’s claim that the weapon was a toy gun was false. The air gun produced in court was verified to be a real weapon. The Court found that the contemnor had deliberately misled the court by giving a false explanation, intending to evade responsibility. This false plea itself was an aggravating factor showing a deliberate and contumacious attitude.
The Court observed that a Local Commissioner is not an ordinary visitor but an extension of the court itself, entrusted with executing judicial directions. Any obstruction to her work is equivalent to direct interference in the functioning of the court. The Bench referred to Court on its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors. (2025:DHC:7206-DB), where individuals had assaulted court commissioners executing anti-counterfeiting orders, and the Court had condemned such behavior as a grave attack on the administration of justice.
Quoting extensively from that judgment, the Bench emphasized that threatening or attacking Local Commissioners “strikes terror in their minds” and, if unpunished, would erode public confidence in the judiciary. Similarly, the Court cited Court on its Own Motion v. Sanjay Rathod (Advocate) (2024:DHC:6390-DB), where disrespectful and scandalous conduct towards the court was held to constitute contempt in the face of the court.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, writing for the Bench, noted that Nitin Bansal’s behaviour—placing a gun on the table while the commission was in progress—was a clear and deliberate act of intimidation. His conduct was not accidental but calculated to obstruct the execution of the judicial commission. The Court rejected his apology, calling it “a mere lip service” lacking genuine remorse or repentance.
The judgment elaborated that acceptance of apology in contempt matters is not automatic; it must be sincere, unconditional, and accompanied by genuine remorse. In this case, the Court found none of these elements present. Instead, the contemnor’s repeated falsehoods and defiant stance reflected an intentional obstruction to the course of justice.
The Bench observed that allowing such conduct to go unpunished would set a dangerous precedent, emboldening litigants to defy and intimidate court officers. The judiciary’s authority, the Court remarked, “is the bedrock of rule of law; without respect for judicial orders, the democratic framework will collapse.”
---
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court held that Nitin Bansal’s conduct clearly amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court found his actions wilful, deliberate, and motivated by an intent to obstruct the administration of justice.
Under Section 12 of the Act, the Court sentenced Nitin Bansal to simple imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of ₹2,000, with a direction that non-payment of the fine would result in an additional 15 days of imprisonment.
The Court ordered the police to take the contemnor into custody from the courtroom and commit him to jail. However, on his counsel’s request citing a family wedding, the Court allowed Nitin Bansal to voluntarily surrender before the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, on 6th November 2025.
The judgment concluded with a strong observation that judicial officers and commissioners must be protected from intimidation and harassment, as they act under the authority of the court. Any attempt to interfere with their lawful duties strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Guns, Defiance, and the Rule of Law: Delhi High Court’s Stern Stand Against Judicial Intimidation
2. Criminal Contempt and the Authority of the Court: Lessons from Court on its Own Motion v. Nitin Bansal
3. Weapon of Contempt: When Defiance Meets the Majesty of Law
4. The Delhi High Court on Protecting Judicial Officers from Intimidation: A Study in Judicial Authority
5. Justice Beyond Fear: The Case that Reinforced Respect for Judicial Process in India
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
