SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 188

K.VENKATASWAMI, N.S.HEGDE
Baldevbhai Gopalbhai Patel: Jayantibhai Ambalal Joshi – Appellant
Versus
K. M. Varg Coop. Group Hsg. Society LTD. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Supreme Court considered the legality of the punishment awarded under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (!) - The Court set aside the High Court’s order directing demolition of the construction, while upholding breach of the court’s order. (!) - The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone plus a fine, taking into account the contemnor’s age (82 years). (!) - The contemnor had already undergone 28 days of imprisonment and paid a fine of Rs. 2000. (!) - The appeals were disposed of with no costs. (!) - The High Court had ordered demolition of construction and six-month vacate periods for inducted persons, with undertakings to prevent transfer and non-hand-over until demolition. (!) - The purpose of punishment in contempt proceedings is deterrence and upholding the prestige of the court; however, Section 12 does not contemplate demolition in this context. (!)

What is the legality of the punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as ordered by the High Court?

What are the implications of demolishing the construction to purge contempt, and is such demolition permissible under Section 12?

What is the appropriate remedy or modification of the High Court’s order given the contemnor’s age and prior actions?


(1) DELAY condoned. Civil Appeal No. 4495 of 1998 admitted.

(2) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) No. 10336 of 1998.

(3) HEARD counsel for both the parties.

(4) THESE appeals are directed against the same order of the Gujarat High Court in Contempt Petition No. 485 of 1993.

(5) WE confine ourselves to the legality of the punishment awarded by the High Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We make it clear that we are not going into the legality or otherwise of the findings of the High Court regarding the disputed construction said to have been made contrary to the direction of the respondent Cooperative Society. We leave that matter open to be agitated in an appropriate forum.

(6) IN this case, the High Court, on facts, found that the appellant in CA No. 4495 of 1998 has committed breach of the order of injunction by proceeding with the construction. For that, the High Court has punished the contemner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, in addition to the payment of fine of Rs 2000 within one week. The High Court has further ordered demolition of the construction already put up in breach of the Courts ord





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top