The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has initiated contempt proceedings against law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) for allegedly misrepresenting a 2010 judgment in a legal notice. Justice Rahul Bharti, in an order issued on January 2, described the alleged misquotation as a serious matter, stating that it prima facie amounted to criminal contempt.
The case stems from a legal notice dated April 18, 2022, issued by SAM on behalf of its client. According to the court, the notice misrepresented the 2010 judgment, suggesting that the court had upheld a contractual relationship between the Sawalkote Consortium and the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Corporation (JKPDC). Justice Bharti noted that this interpretation was inaccurate, as the judgment did not address or validate such a contractual claim.
Taking suo moto cognisance, the court directed SAM’s Delhi office to appear in person to explain its position. Justice Bharti observed that the legal notice falsely portrayed the Sawalkote Consortium’s contract as “alive, thriving, and binding,” a conclusion never reached by the court.
The proceedings are linked to a petition filed by Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS) challenging a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between JKPDC and the National Hydro Electric Project (NHPC). The MoU outlined plans for four hydroelectric projects, including the 1,856 MW Sawalkote plant. SPAS claimed it had an existing agreement with JKPDC for the project.
The high court had dismissed SPAS’ writ petition, ruling that the company lacked the legal standing to challenge the MoU. However, SAM’s legal notice allegedly distorted a prior 2010 judgment, which had quashed a government order mandating competitive bidding for the Sawalkote project. While the judgment addressed procedural irregularities in the bidding process, it did not validate any contractual relationships involving SPAS or the Sawalkote Consortium, which included Hindustan Construction Company and Ozaltin Construction.
In its latest order, the court accused SAM of manipulating the 2010 judgment to advance self-serving claims. Justice Bharti warned that such actions could not go unaddressed. The court directed the Registrar, Judicial, in Jammu to issue a notice to SAM, requiring the firm to respond.
Senior Advocate CM Koul, along with advocates Arshad Hussain and AR Bhat, represented the petitioners. Advocate General DC Raina and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta appeared for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, while Senior Advocate PN Raina and advocates JA Hamal and AP Singh represented JKPDC and NHPC.
Also Read: Delhi HC restrains unknown parties from infringing Upstox’s trademark
(Edited by : Shoma Bhattacharjee)
