Whether court can pass ancillary orders in contempt jurisdiction?

Mr.Kini, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that this court has no powers to pass ancillary orders while exercising the contempt jurisdiction which may altogether be the subject of an independent proceedings before this court. In fact according to the learned counsel, the order to appoint the respondent No.2 as agent of the receiver was challenged by the original plaintiff before this court by way of a writ petition and this court did appoint the defendant No.2 as an agent of the receiver inspite of being the contemnor. According to him, therefore, an order cannot be made by this court in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction for vacating the receivership of the respondent contemnor. Now, admittedly such a prayer was made before the trial court in the presence of the contemnor which was not allowed by the trial court. It is, therefore, clear that the contemnor has notice of such a prayer having been made by the original plaintiff. As regards propriety of such an order, I am of view that there is no merit in the contention that this court in exercise of a contempt jurisdiction cannot make such order because such an order was not made by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of the appointment of the receivership. At that stage the contemnor was not found as having breached the order of the court and therefore, there was no occasion to pass such an order.

High Court of Judicature at Bombay

V.D. Kavatkar, Registrar, Small Causes Court, Bombay vs. Fatima Huseni Radhapurwala & Others

(SUO MOTO) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.189 OF 2005, INT. NOTICE NO.660 of 2005, R.A.D. & E. SUIT NO.1155 of 1905 OF 2002

Decided On, 28 August 2007

By,  MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

Print Page

Whether in contempt jurisdiction court can travel beyond four corners of order which is alleged to have been flouted?

 In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to
the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel
beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been
floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and
others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others (2014) 3 SCC
373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held as under:-
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both
under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission of
contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in
the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of selfdetermination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are

explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea
of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004) 13 SCC
610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613.” [underlining added]
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that
the Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition
and further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay
compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to
more than Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having
implications on the public exchequer, the public money cannot be
allowed to be taken away by an individual by filing contempt
petition thereby arm-twisting the authorities.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30317 of 2017)

ER. K. ARUMUGAM  Vs V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.

Dated:February 06, 2019

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

Whether allegations made against registry constitute contempt of court?

 The contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect the reputation of the concerned Judge so that he can administer Justice fearlessly and fairly, but also to protect "the fair name of the judiciary". The protection in a manner of speaking, extends even to the Registry in the performance of its task and false and unfair allegations which seek to impede the working of the Registry and thus the administration of Justice, made with oblique motives cannot be tolerated. In such a situation in order to uphold the honor and dignity of the institution, the Court has to perform the painful duties which we are faced with in the present proceedings. Not to do so in the words of P.B. Sawant, J. in Sanjiv Dutta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re, MANU/SC/0697/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 619 would -

The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2017

Decided On: 17.08.2017

 In Re: Mohit Chaudhary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.S. Khehar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 16 SCC 78

Print Page