Whether contempt proceeding can be proceeded further without framing of charge?

As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed on the singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded against him without framing formal charges or furnishing such charges to him; and moreso because filing of affidavit by the appellant was supported by contemporaneous official record, which cannot be termed as an attempt to obstruct the due course of administration of justice. Accordingly, this appeal ought to succeed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2006

R. S. Sehrawat Vs Rajeev Malhotra & Ors.

Dated:September 05, 2018.

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Print Page

Whether decree holder can execute decree as well as initiate contempt proceeding against Judgment debtor?

 Our court in MANU/MH/0195/2004 : 2004 (6) Bom. C.R. 356 European Investment Limited vs. Triumph International Finance India Limited and others has also held that availability of the remedy of the execution proceeding does not bar the contempt proceedings since it is an additional remedy. Such proceedings are between the court and deemed Contemnor and the complainant therein may not receive any relief to his benefit. The discretion given to the court in its contempt jurisdiction is for the maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Paragraph 39 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"39. Merely because the order is an executable order, it cannot be said that no contempt proceedings would lie against the defaulter in such cases nor it can be said that in case of monetary claim under a order or undertaking, the defaulter cannot be made to face contempt proceedings. The law laid down by the Apex Court and the decisions referred to above clearly reveal that the contempt proceedings are independent of the execution proceedings and are primarily made to ensure the compliance of the Court's order rather than giving a relief to the parties and, therefore, mere availability of the execution proceedings cannot be construed as bar for contempt proceedings as the remedies are not alternative remedies and they can be invoked simultaneously. The purpose behind the execution proceedings is solely to enable the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree in his favour while the contempt proceedings are primarily to ensure the compliance of the Court's order and in case of failure thereof to punish the contemner."

67. In every case like our present case, the party may simply not take any step to comply with the order and will simply keep quite. It is for the party to take all possible steps to ensure prompt compliance of the courts order and in that regards to disclose what steps have been taken to comply with the order with facts and figures duly supported by materials on record. Failure in that regard would warrant conclusion about the willful default in compliance with the order. When the judgment of the single Judge in the European Investment Limited case (supra) was impugned before the Appeal Court, the Appeal Court modified the said order. That was taken to the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the Appeal Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the single Judge and set aside the order of the Appeal Court. In the matter of MANU/MH/0139/2004 : 2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 341 Santosh Dattaram Nadkarni and others vs. New India Industries Limited and others a single Judge of this court again held that contempt proceedings and execution proceedings, are two separate remedies available and can be invoked simultaneously and that contempt is a matter between the court and the person against contempt of court whereas the purpose behind execution proceedings is to enjoy the fruits of the decree in his favour.

68. The division bench of the Madras High Court in the matter of IILLN, High Court, Madras 845 India Forge and Drop Stampings Ltd., Madras vs. India Forge and Drop Stampings Employee's Union, Madras has held that a perusal of section 22 of the 1971 Act would show that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, "shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law." The court has held that the object of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is to punish a party guilty of the disobedience as contemplated by section 2(b) of the said act. The purpose is not to "execute" any order, for which purpose the aggrieved party shall have to take recourse to other proceedings known to law. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"13. The submission on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the order, disobedience of which is complained of, is capable of being enforced in some other manner known to law, an application for contempt of Court for non-compliance of that order is not maintainable, has no merit. There is no warrant for saying that where an order, the disobedience of which is complied of, can be executed, the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and to punish the offender, if proved guilty, under S. 12 of the said Act, is in any way affected. As a matter of fact, a perusal of S. 22 of the 1971, "shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law." The section, unmistakably declares that its provisions are to be taken in addition to and not in derogation of the other laws. In view of this express inhibition in absolute terms against the provisions of the 1971 Act being considered in derogation of any other law, the argument that since the order, disobedience of which is complained of, could have been got executed through a procedure otherwise known to law, recourse to contempt proceedings could not be had falls flat. The object of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is to punish a party guilty of the disobedience as contemplated by S. 2(b) of the said Act. The purpose is not to "execute" any order, for which purpose the aggrieved party shall have to take recourse to other proceedings known to law."

69. It should be remembered that when a party in whose favour an order has been made approaches the court to punish the disobedience of its order, he does not use those proceedings to get the order executed but merely brings to the notice of the court the objectionable conduct of the party disobeying the order and seeks action against that party for committing contempt of court. There is a clear distinction taken - having order executed and bringing to notice of the court willful disobedience on the part of the guilty party and seek to have him punished for contempt of court.

70. This has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the matter of MANU/SC/1031/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 360 Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another. Contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged Contemnor and is not affected in any manner by the rights and obligations of the parties to the litigation inter se. Rama Narang (supra) and MANU/SC/4065/2007 : (2007) 13 SCC 220 Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Mahinder C. Mehta and others, have confirmed this view. Though the Apex Court in the Food Corporation India (supra) has held that one cannot use contempt jurisdiction for enforcement of money decrees, it should be noted that the application in that matter as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the said judgment was for enforcement of the order by attachment of the property by seizing and auctioning the movable and immovable properties of FCI. No such relief in the nature of execution is being sought in the present matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2015 in Company Application (L) No. 70 of 2013 in Company Appeal No. 15 of 2013 in CLB/Company Petition No. 13 of 2012

Decided On: 09.02.2016

 Rajinder Kumar Malhotra Vs. Paresh Biharilal Vyas and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.R. Shriram, J.

Citation:2017 (3) ALLMR 129

Print Page

Whether court has jurisdiction to decide matter on merit in contempt proceeding?

 In  J.S.   Parihar   v.   Ganpat   Duggar   and   others  (1996) 6 SCC 291
their   Lordships   of   the   Supreme   Court   held   that 
jurisdiction  to consider  the matter on  merits cannot 
be exercised in the contempt proceeding. Paragraph­ 6 
of the report states as under:­ 

“6.........It is seen that once there is an order 
passed   by   the   Government   on   the   basis   of   the 
directions   issued   by   the   court,   there   arises   a 
fresh   cause   of   action   to   seek   redressal   in   an 
appropriate   forum.   The   preparation   of   the 
seniority   list   may   be   wrong   or   may   be   right   or 
may   or   may   not   be   in   conformity   with   the 
directions.   But   that   would   be   a   fresh   cause   of 
action   for   the   aggrieved   party   to   avail   of   the 
opportunity   of   judicial   review.   But   that   cannot 
be considered to be the willful violation of the 
order. After re­exercising the judicial review in 
contempt   proceedings,   a   fresh   direction   by   the 
learned   Single   Judge   cannot   be   given   to   redraw 
the seniority list. In other words, the learned 
Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider 
the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. 
It would not be permissible under Section 12 of 
the Act.” 



HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
  
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
   SINGLE BENCH:  

 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Contempt Case (C)  No. 30/2011

A.K.Chhibber 
Versus

Chairman,   Coal   India   Limited 
and others 
(CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
      
Citation;2015 CRLJ1381
O R D E R
   (Passed on 09/12/2014) 

Print Page

What are essential conditions for initiating contempt proceeding?

It  is well  settled  law,  before  a proceeding  for 
contempt can succeed, it is of paramount importance to 
establish first, the service of the order of the Court 
said to have been disobeyed upon the person alleged to 
have committed contempt thereof, secondly the precise 
act of contempt, thirdly the precise responsibility of 
the contemnor in the act of contempt, and fourthly the 
date of the alleged contempt being subsequent to the 
service   of   the   order   said   to   have   been   disobeyed. 
These   are   the   four   indispensable   requisites   and 
failure   to   establish   any   one   of   them   must   mean 
dismissal of the petition for contempt.  



HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
  
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
   SINGLE BENCH:  

 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Contempt Case (C)  No. 30/2011

A.K.Chhibber 
V

Chairman,   Coal   India   Limited 
and others 
(CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
      

O R D E R
   (Passed on 09/12/2014) 
 Citation;2015 CRLJ1381

Print Page

Whether contempt petition will be maintainable once order is passed on merit as per direction given by court?

Once an order is passed on merit, on the basis of 
direction issued by the Court, contempt petition would 
not be maintainable under Section 12 of the Contempt 
of Courts Act. 


HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
  
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
   SINGLE BENCH:  

 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Contempt Case (C)  No. 30/2011
COMPLAINANT
(Petitioner)
A.K.Chhibber 
Versus
Chairman,   Coal   India   Limited 
and others 
(CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
      

O R D E R
   (Passed on 09/12/2014) 
 Citation;2015 CRLJ1381 Chhatis

Print Page

Whether contempt proceeding can be initiated against state without impleading its officers?

 If the facts of the case are examined in light of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings), Rules, 2007 and the principles of law laid down with regard to nature of contempt proceeding and impalement of the contemnor/person charged as laid down Tarafatullah Mandal case (supra) it is held that contempt proceeding is proceeding in person am and the petitioners have neither given the names of the person charged and responsible for breach of the order of Court on behalf of the State Government and Nagar Panchayat, therefore a contempt proceeding cannot be proceeded with in absence of individual person responsible for disobeying the order of the Court being a party as contemnor. Thus the petitioners having failed to name the person charged/contemnor in the contempt petition and even not given the date or dates on which the order is said to be disobeyed the contempt proceeding cannot be initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Resultantly, the contempt petition as framed and filed is not in accordance with Rule 349 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 is dismissed as not maintainable. However it will be open to the contempt petitioners to file duly constituted contempt petition in accordance with Rules of 2007.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Contempt Case (C) No. 412 of 2014

Decided On: 10.11.2014

Appellants: Sada Singh and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: 2015CriLJ1462

Print Page

What are essential conditions for taking contempt proceeding for disobedience of order of court?

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “contempt of court”

in Section 2(a) to mean “civil contempt or criminal contempt”.

“Civil contempt” is defined in Section 2(b) to mean “wilful

disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or

other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking

given to a court”.

It is well settled law, before a proceeding for contempt can

succeed, it is of paramount importance to establish first, the

services of the order of the Court said to have been disobeyed

upon the person alleged to have committed contempt thereof

secondly the precise act of contempt, thirdly the precise

responsibility of the contemnor in the act of contempt, and

fourthly the date of the alleged contempt being subsequent to

the service of the order said to have been disobeyed. These

are the four indispensable requisites and failure to establish

any one of them must mean dismissal of the petition for

contempt.

For a contempt action to lie, it is necessary for the parent order

to be an enforceable order. To determiner whether there has

been disobedience or breach of an order is a mixed question of

fact and law. It requires:

(1) delineating the true scope and content of the parent order;

and

(2) examining the acts that allegedly constitute contempt.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

Contempt Case (C) No. 02 of 2015

M/s Mile Stone Soft. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. V  Nidhi Chhibber

CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

(Passed on 08 .05.2015)

Print Page

What action court can take when there is breach of undertaking on the basis of which suit is disposed off?

 In KANWAR SINGH SAINI v. HIGH COURT OF

DELHI  the Supreme Court discussed categorically about the distinction between Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. It is held: "An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A lies only where disobedience/breach of injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. On the other hand in case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution Court under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross-examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC is not maintainable once the suit is decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under order XXI Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the Court has to exercise its discretion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC would also include the case of violation of breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of the decree. It is also observed that in an undertaking given to the Court during the pendency of the suit on the basis of which the suit itself has been disposed of becomes a part of the decree and breach of such undertaking is to be dealt with in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and no by way of contempt proceedings."

Supreme Court of India

Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court Of Delhi on 23 September, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

REPORTABLE

 Citation: 2012(1)ACR1035(SC), 2012(2)ALD58(SC), 2012 (90) ALR 24, 2012(2)ALT(Cri)SC71, 2012BomCR(Cri)522, 2011 (4) KLT(SN) 32, 2012-1-LW689, (2012)2MLJ409(SC), 2012(1)PLJR241, 2011(4)RCR(Civil)402, 2011(4)RCR(Criminal)407, 2012 115 RD291, 2011(10)SCALE725, (2012)4SCC307, 2011(6)UJ4202

Print Page