1. Breach of injunction order regarding construction — Punishment under Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Order for imprisonment, fine, and demolition of construction. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 188
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Venkataswami : N.Santosh Hegde
Baldevbhai Gopalbhai Patel: Jayantibhai Ambalal Joshi
Versus
K.M.Varg Coop.Group Hsg.Society Limited
Case No. : 794 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/12/99
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not authorize the court to order the demolition of structures to purge contempt. Punishment for contempt serves as a deterrent and to uphold court prestige, distinct from the substantive right to construct.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Punishment for contempt - Order of demolition to purge contempt - Section 12 does not contemplate punishment of the nature of ordering demolition of construction put up in breach of court order - Purpose of punishment for contempt is to act as deterrent and to uphold the prestige of the court - Punishment for breach of court order is distinct from the right of the party to put up the disputed construction. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The High Court found that the appellants committed a breach of an injunction order by proceeding with construction. The High Court punished the contemners with three months' imprisonment and a fine, and further ordered the demolition of the construction to restore the position as it was on the date of the original order.
Findings of Court:
The order directing the demolition of the construction is set aside as such punishment is not contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, taking into account the age of the contemner.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in ordering the demolition of construction to purge the contempt committed by the parties under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not provide for demolition of structures as a form of punishment for contempt. The objective of contempt proceedings is deterrence and maintaining the court's prestige, which is separate from the substantive legality of the construction itself.
Result: Appeals disposed of; demolition order set aside; sentence reduced to period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2000.
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?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could order the demolition of construction to purge contempt committed by the parties. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The court confined its review to the legality of punishment under Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noting that contempt punishment serves as a deterrent. (Para 5 , 8 )
4. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not contemplate the demolition of construction as a punishment for contempt. (Para 8 )
5. Demolition order set aside; sentence reduced to period already undergone and fine upheld. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can a court order the demolition of a structure to purge contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
No, Section 12 of the Act does not contemplate punishment of that nature. The purpose of punishment for contempt is to act as a deterrent and uphold the prestige of the court. (Para 8 )
7. Is the punishment for breaching a court order the same as deciding the substantive right to perform the act in breach?
No, the punishment for breach of a court order is distinct from the substantive right of the party to perform the act, such as putting up a disputed construction. (Para 8 )
(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 order.
(7) THE question for consideration here is whether the High Court was right in ordering the demolition of the construction to purge the contempt committed by the parties. The High Court has said as follows:
"TO purge the contempt committed by the respondent, the respondent should demolish the construction and restore the position as it was on the date on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. We grant six months time to inducted persons to vacate the premises which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is quite reasonable. On expiry of sixth months from today, the respondent shall demolish the structure which is constructed by him or through his agent in contravention of the orders passed by this Court and shall restore the position as it was on the day on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. We direct the inducted persons to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today, failing which they shall be forcibly evicted and the premises shall be restored as it was on the day on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. It is further directed that the persons who are inducted and are occupying the premises, shall also file an undertaking clearly stating that property possessed by them shall not be transferred in any manner whatsoever and further that possession will not be handed over to anyone till the superstructure is demolished. Copy of the undertaking duly signed will be supplied to the Society. Undertaking by each occupier to be filed within a period of a fortnight."
(8) SECTION 12 of the Act does not contemplate punishment of the said nature while considering the petition for contempt of court. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to support that para of the order of the High Court ordering demolition of the construction put up in breach of the Courts order. It is well known that the purpose of punishment for contempt is to act as deterrent and to uphold the prestige of the court. In this case, the issue relating to permissibility of the disputed construction is not finally decided. The punishment was only for breach of the courts order which is different from the right of the contemner to put up the disputed construction.
(9) IN the circumstances, we set aside that portion of the High Courts order directing demolition of the construction put up in breach of the courts order. It is stated that the contemner has already undergone imprisonment for 28 days and has paid the fine. While upholding the finding of the High Court on breach of the courts order, we reduce the sentence, taking into consideration the age of the contemner which is said to be 82 years, to the period already undergone in addition to the payment of Rs. 2000 as fine.
(10) THE appeal
