1. Appeal under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Violation of interim court order restricting financial sanctions by a municipal board chairman — Civil contempt proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : P.V.Reddi
Lakshman Prasad Agarwal
Versus
Syed Mohamad Karim
Case No. : 2624 of 1991
Date of Decision : 1/17/02
Important Points
Willful disobedience of a court order is determined by both its letter and spirit. A plea of bona fide belief or legal advice does not excuse contempt if the party fails to seek a formal vacation of the order before acting contrary to it.
Subject
Civil Law - Contempt of Court
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Civil contempt - Violation of interim order restricting financial sanctions - Appellant, while functioning as chairman of a municipal board, was ordered not to sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00 - Despite this, signed several cheques exceeding the limit totaling approximately thirty-four lacs - Plea of being misguided by legal advice or acting under a bona fide impression that the order was infructuous rejected - Disobedience of a court order is to be understood not only by the letter but also by the spirit of the order (Para 5).
(B) Civil Contempt - Bona fide belief - Plea of genuine belief must be considered based on the spirit of the order and the conduct of the contemnor - Failure to seek vacation of an interim order while acting contrary to it negates the plea of bona fide impression (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, chairman of a municipal board, was granted an interim order allowing him to continue in office provided he did not sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00. During the operative period of this order, the appellant signed and counter-signed multiple cheques exceeding the specified limit, totaling approximately thirty-four lacs. A proceeding for civil contempt was initiated, and the High Court found him guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience, sentencing him to pay a fine.
Findings of Court:
The High Court rightly held that the appellant was guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience. The contention that signing cheques did not amount to sanctioning the amount, but merely approving a sanction order passed by an executive officer, was rejected.
Issues: Whether the act of signing cheques in violation of a financial restriction constitutes willful disobedience of a court order and whether a plea of bona fide legal advice or belief excuses such conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in determining disobedience of a court order, both the letter and the spirit of the order must be considered. A plea of bona fide belief is untenable if the party fails to take steps to withdraw the petition or seek a formal vacation of the interim order before acting in contradiction to it.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Civil Contempt - Bona fide belief - Plea of genuine belief must be considered based on the spirit of the order and the conduct of the contemnor - Failure to seek vacation of an interim order while acting contrary to it negates the plea of bona fide impression (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, chairman of a municipal board, was granted an interim order allowing him to continue in office provided he did not sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00. During the operative period of this order, the appellant signed and counter-signed multiple cheques exceeding the specified limit, totaling approximately thirty-four lacs. A proceeding for civil contempt was initiated, and the High Court found him guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience, sentencing him to pay a fine.
Findings of Court:
The High Court rightly held that the appellant was guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience. The contention that signing cheques did not amount to sanctioning the amount, but merely approving a sanction order passed by an executive officer, was rejected.
Issues: Whether the act of signing cheques in violation of a financial restriction constitutes willful disobedience of a court order and whether a plea of bona fide legal advice or belief excuses such conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in determining disobedience of a court order, both the letter and the spirit of the order must be considered. A plea of bona fide belief is untenable if the party fails to take steps to withdraw the petition or seek a formal vacation of the interim order before acting in contradiction to it.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plea of bona fide belief based on legal advice and contention that the underlying writ petition had become infructuous. (Para 4 )
3. Disobedience is determined by both the letter and spirit of the order; bona fide belief is rejected if no steps were taken to vacate the order. (Para 5 )
4. Wilful disobedience of a court order is established when the contemnor ignores the spirit of the order and fails to seek legal recourse to vacate it. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed; finding of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the court order upheld. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. How is disobedience of a court order evaluated?
Disobedience is evaluated by considering both the letter and the spirit of the order. A plea of bona fide or genuine belief by the contemnor is considered on this basis. (Para 5 )
7. Does acting on legal advice excuse a violation of a court order?
A plea of bona fide impression based on legal advice is not acceptable if the contemnor, after knowing the order, fails to take steps to withdraw the petition or vacate the interim order. (Para 5 )
8. Does signing a cheque constitute sanctioning an amount in the context of a court restriction?
Yes. The court rejected the contention that signing or counter-signing cheques is merely approving a sanction order rather than sanctioning the amount, emphasizing the spirit of the court's restriction. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT
D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.
(1) HEARD Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents despite service of notice.
(2) IN this appeal filed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the contemnor has assailed the judgment/order of the Allahabad High Court holding him guilty of contempt and sentencing him to pay Rs. 1,000.00as fine.
(3) THE factual backdrop of the case, necessary for appreciating the contentions raised, may be stated thus: The appellant, who was the chairman of the Municipal Board of Moradabad during the relevant period, received the notice issued by the district magistrate for convening a meeting of the municipal board on 4.6.1990 to discuss the no-confidence motion against the appellant. He filed writ petition no. 15963 of 1990 seeking quashing of the said notice. Therein, he prayed for a direction to the respondents not to hold the meeting on the scheduled date. The matter relating to the prayer for interim order was heard on 1/06/1990 and order was reserved. The meeting of the board was held on 4.6.1990 as schedule and the no-confidence motion was carried by majority and a resolution was passed removing the appellant from the office of the chairmanship of the board. Thereafter, he filed another case, civil miscellaneous writ petition no. 15962/90, challenging no-confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 4.6.1990. By an interim order passed on 6.6.1990 in that case, the resolution in which the no-confidence motion was passed was ordered to be suspended. Thereafter, on 8.6.1990 an interim order was passed in the writ petition no. 15963/90 filed earlier, which reads as follows:
"AFTER having considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that until further orders of the court, in case the motion of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to. However, it is ordered that the petitioner may continue to function as chairman, in case the motion of no-confidence has been passed but he shall not sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00."
It was clearly provided in the order that the appellant may continue to function as chairman in case the motion of no-confidence has been passed but he shall not sanction or pass order regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00. This order remained operative till 18.7.1990 when on the application filed by the appellant stating that the stay order has been rendered infructuous and the same may be vacated, the court passed the order dismissing the stay petition as infructuous andvacated the stay order. Between 9.6.1990 and 17.7.1990 when the aforementioned order directing the appellant not to sanction or pass orders regarding financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000.00 remained operative, the appellant signed/counter-signed several cheques each for a sum of more than rupees one thousand; the total amount of such cheques was about thirty four lacs of rupees. Stating the facts as above, an application was filed in the High Court for initiating a proceeding for civil contempt against the appellant alleging that he had wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by the court on 8.6.1990 in C.M.W.P. No. 15963/90.
(4) THE appellant in his reply took the stand, inter alia, that he was misguided by the legal advice given to him that in view of the unconditional order of stay passed in another case, writ petition no. 15962/90, it was open to him not only to function as the chairman of the municipal board but also to sign cheques without any restriction regarding amount. It was the plea of the appellant that being guided by such legal advice, he had signed/counter-signed cheques for sums in excess of Rs. 1,000.00. He also raised the contention that since the first writ petition in which the conditional order of stay was passed had become infructuous
