1. Contempt petition — Alleged failure to follow guidelines for sale of defaulter's property by financial corporation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : K.Ramaswamy
Packraft India Private Limitedthrough Its Director V.S.Mann
Versus
U.P.Financial Corporation Through Its M.D.R.M.Sethi
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 11/13/95
Advocates Appeared: Dahiya M.S. : More B.S. : Singh Kusum : Singh Mahabir
Advocates:
B.S.MOR, KUSUM SINGH, M.S.DAHIYA, Mahabir Singh
B.S.MOR, KUSUM SINGH, M.S.DAHIYA, Mahabir Singh
Violation of a legal principle or guideline established by the Supreme Court under Article 141 is a matter for judicial review and does not constitute contempt of court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court - Binding nature - Remedy for infraction - Contempt of Court - Whether failure to follow guidelines laid down by the Court in a previous case regarding the sale of a defaulter's property amounts to willful disobedience and contempt - Law laid down by the Court is binding under Article 141, but any infraction or action in violation of such law is to be corrected by way of judicial review and not through contempt proceedings. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner alleged that a financial corporation sold their property in violation of specific guidelines laid down by the Court in a previous judgment concerning the sale of a defaulter's properties. Consequently, the petitioner sought to have the respondents convicted for contempt of court for willful disobedience of the law.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the law declared by it is binding on everyone, the appropriate remedy for any violation of such law is to seek correction through judicial review rather than initiating contempt proceedings.
Issues: Whether the non-adherence to guidelines for the sale of a defaulter's property constitutes willful disobedience of the law amounting to contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: An infraction of the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 should be addressed through judicial review; such a violation does not automatically render the parties liable for contempt of court.
Result: The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Non-compliance with guidelines for sale of defaulter's property — Contention that such infraction constitutes willful disobedience warranting contempt conviction. (Para 1 )
3. Binding nature of law under Article 141 — Infractions of such law to be corrected via judicial review rather than contempt proceedings. (Para 2 )
4. Infraction of law laid down by the court — Remedy lies in judicial review, not in contempt proceedings. (Para 2 )
5. Contempt petition dismissed — Liberty granted to seek appropriate legal remedy. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does a violation of guidelines laid down in a judgment constitute contempt of court?
No. If there is an infraction of action in violation of the law laid down by the court, the appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by judicial review, not by way of contempt proceedings. (Para 2 )
7. What is the legal status of law declared by the court under Article 141?
Law laid down by the court is binding on everyone under Article 141. (Para 2 )
8. What is the appropriate remedy for an action that violates a binding legal precedent?
The appropriate remedy for an action in violation of law laid down by the court is to seek correction through judicial review. (Para 2 )
(1) THIS court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn. has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.
(2) THE law laid down by this court in Mahesh Chandra case is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this court.
(3) UNDER these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.
(4) THE contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
