Read Time: 08 minutes
The dispute stemmed from a 2001 employment contract between Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (later Hero MotoCorp Ltd.) and Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for manpower services. The contract, which included an arbitration clause, was terminated in 2010 due to strained relations. BLPL invoked arbitration in 2010, leading to the appointment of Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator in 2012. In 2018, the Arbitrator awarded BLPL ₹70,00,000 for short payments and service charges with interest. Hero MotoCorp challenged the award in court.
The Delhi High Court, recently, held Roop Darshan Pandey, the director of Brain Logistics Pvt Ltd, guilty of contempt. The court noted that Pandey had released certain documents to the press.
Addressing this conduct, the bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma opined that “The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is also not acceptable as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by Courts”.
The dispute arose from an employment contract dated October 1, 2001, between Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (later renamed Hero MotoCorp Ltd., or HML) and Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (BLPL) for manpower services. The contract, which included an arbitration clause, was terminated on March 30, 2010, due to strained relations. BLPL invoked the arbitration clause in April 2010, and Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in 2012. In May 2018, the Arbitrator awarded BLPL ₹70,00,000 for short payments and service charges with interest, which HML challenged in court.
The contractual dispute escalated into multiple criminal cases. BLPL alleged improprieties against HML, leading to a Karkardooma Court order in July 2024 for registering an FIR. HML sought to quash the FIR and obtained a stay order on July 22, 2024. Subsequently, BLPL issued a legal notice in September 2024, accusing HML of forum shopping and procedural irregularities. The notice was deemed contemptuous, with allegations published online. On October 3, 2024, HML filed an application to record the notice.
HML alleged that Roop Darshan Pandey repeatedly abused judicial processes by escalating a contractual dispute into multiple criminal cases. Both matters stemmed from the same contract and arbitration proceedings, with allegations centering on the use of Hero MotoCorp Limited’s seal to attest true copies of documents belonging to its predecessor, Hero Honda Motors Limited, due to a name change. It was claimed that Pandey harassed the company by issuing notices, including one on December 15, 2024, accusing the board of directors of forgery.
Journalist Atul Krishnan of the New Indian also admitted to publishing the legal notice on Twitter without verifying its contents and refused to disclose the source.
The court reviewed the records and noted that Pandey and his company, BLPL, had filed numerous cases in different forums, including criminal complaints against HML, its directors, and promoters. Regarding the present contempt, even after the contempt reference was made, Pandey persisted in alleging procedural improprieties in the matter being mentioned in DB-II. He submitted rosters of the court for the relevant period, intending to scandalize the court further.
The court emphasized that the language used in the legal notice was intended to scandalize the judiciary and undermine public confidence in its functioning. Furthermore, the notice was deliberately leaked online to harm HML's reputation and lower the court’s dignity. The journalist, Atul Krishna, who disseminated the notice, tendered an unconditional apology, which the court accepted. However, the court admonished him to exercise greater responsibility in the future.
The court opined that Pandey’s behavior during the proceedings was defiant, and his apology lacked sincerity. He continued to harass HML and its representatives while making unfounded allegations against the court and its Registry. This was not an isolated incident; Pandey had a history of filing baseless complaints and applications against courts and counsels.
The court held him guilty of criminal contempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentencing him to two weeks of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, with an additional seven days’ imprisonment in case of non-payment.The police were directed to take Pandey into custody immediately, and the contempt reference was disposed of.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Dayan Krishnan and Maninder Singh with Advocates Rishi Agrawala, Rahul Malhotra, Devika Mohan, Ankit Banati, Abhishek Anand, Manavi Agarwal, Kashish Mathur, Minal Kaushik, Sanjana Nair and Rishu Kant SharmaFor Respondent: Advocates Anjali Sisodia, Deepak Dahiya and Advait GhoshCase Title: Court on its own motion v Roop Darshan Pandey (2025:DHC:337-DB)
Please Login or Register
