How to prove contempt of court?

The term "Civil Contempt" is defined in Section 2(b) to mean "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court". Pertinently, in the present case, the first part of this definition comes into play. There, "willful disobedience" to any judgment, decree etc. is a pre-requisite. Unless that is satisfied, a case of civil contempt is not made out. The Contempt Act itself is so clear inasmuch as contempts which are not of a nature substantially interfering or tending substantially to interfere with the due course of justice are said to be such which though committed, a sentence need not be imposed. However, in the facts of the present case, we have to first determine whether a civil contempt is at all committed.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on more occasions than one, has clarified that when an allegation is made of willful disobedience of an order of a Court, then, the Court has to be very careful for the order must not be ambiguous or reasonably capable of more than one interpretation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earliest decision in the case of State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari MANU/SC/0002/1960 : AIR 1961 SC 221 held that an order of injunction passed in that case cannot be held to have been willfully disobeyed because the two conditions were not satisfied. The two conditions are that the order should be unambiguous and not reasonably capable of more than one interpretation. Secondly, the party proceeded against, in fact, did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.

27. The question whether a party acts in a peculiar manner or has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction, is primarily one of fact. This test was further relied upon in a decision in Mritunjoy Das & Anr v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & ors MANU/SC/0177/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 1293. If an order is susceptible of two interpretation, one in favour of contemnor and another in favour of complainant, then, the contemnor is entitled to benefit of doubt. That is because contempt jurisdiction itself is to be exercised sparingly and with due care and caution. The burden of proof is on one who alleges contempt and the standard of proof required is that in a criminal proceeding, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Contempt Petition No. 204 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 10341 of 2004

Decided On: 23.02.2018

Thaksen Waman Davale Vs.  Subhas D. Sonawane and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 649

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while passing order for attachment of property for disobedience of injunction order

The penalty imposed by the trial Court reads as hereunder:

"The opp. Parties are hereby found guilty of disobedience of status quo order of this Court. The properties of the O.Ps. be attached and they also be detained in Civil prison for seven days."

It is clearly readable from the above quoted law and underlined portion from the impugned order that the order of attachment of the property as one of the penalties is not in accordance with the provision of law. Extent of property and duration for which it should remain under attachment and extent of restriction for using or dealing with such properties by the person guilty of breach of order of injunction must be made clearly specific and no ambiguity or vagueness should be there. Apart from that, such penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the act complained. Applying judicial discretion in that respect is the salutary principle.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Civil Revision No. 71 of 2002

Decided On: 09.05.2002

Jaigun Nisa Bibi and 2 Ors.
Vs.
 Sk. Badiruddin Zahed

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.K. Tripathy, J.

Citation:2002(3) Civil court cases 513 Orissa

Print Page

How a party can prove that he has not violated injunction order?

 It is, however, to be borne in mind that where a person who is not a party to the suit is proceeded against in order to punish him it is essential that he should be made a party to the proceeding for violation and it should be brought home by sufficient and unimpeachable evidence that he had been guilty of abetting violation of injunction. A party proceeded against for violation of injunction can prove his innocence in the following manner, i.e. by proving that (a) the order was not within knowledge, or (b) the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation or (c) that in fact he did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner, and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of fact. The party setting up such a plea has to prove it.

Citation : AIR 1994 Ori 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Misc. Appeal No. 170 of 1990

Decided On: 04.01.1994

 Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra
Vs.
Jaya Krushna Mohapatra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

Print Page