Back
2009(2) Supreme 587
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
C. Elumalai & Ors. — Appellant
versus
A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr. — Respondents
Contempt Petition No. 118 of 2007
IN
Special Leave petition (C) No. 19924 of 2006
Decided on : 20-03-2009
Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 – ‘Wilful disobedience’ of an order of Court – ‘Wilful’ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – It signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose – Act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 8)
(2003) 11SCC 1 — Relied upon.
Facts of the Case : A Contempt petition was filed by petitioners herein in the instant case alleging violation of order passed by Apex Court. Petitioners alleged that by order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP(C ) No. 19924 of 2006, court had directed that High Court which was considering CS No. 597 of 2006 in original side shall make an effort to dispose of the suit within a period of six months and that till completion of the suit parties would not create any third party right. However it was the case of petitioners that in clear violation of court’s order, third party rights had been created.
Findings of the Court :
Punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. On consideration of various aspects, held that there had been a wilful and deliberate violation of Court’s order. Hence in exercise of court’s jurisdiction under Article 129 of Constitution of India exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed on each of the contemnors. Direction was given that in case of non payment, contemnors to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.
Result : Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Alleging violation of the order passed by this Court, the present contempt petition has been filed. Stand of the petitioners is that by order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP(C ) No. 19924 of 2006, this court had directed that the High Court which was considering CS No. 597 of 2006 in the original side shall make an effort to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. It was also directed that till completion of the suit the parties shall not create any third party right. It is the case of the petitioners that in clear violation of this court’s order, third party rights have been created. Several affidavits have been filed by the respondent No.1-alleged contemnor No.1. But no response has been filed by the respondent No.2- alleged contemnor No.2.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there has been conscious violation of the orders passed by this court. The unconditional apologies offered at various stages are intended to cover up the violation. Even after filing of the first affidavit containing alleged unconditional apology, the subsequent conduct shows continued violation.
3.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-contemnor No.1 submitted that the factual scenario clearly shows that there was never any intention to flout the orders of this court. Rather, the respondent No.1-contemnor No.1 is a victim of circumstances and therefore the unconditional apology offered should be accepted.
4.Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
5.Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P.1 [1984 (3) SCC 405]:
“We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the “slap-say sorry and forget” school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying “sorry” does not make the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and nor from the pen. For it is one thing to “say” sorry - it is another to “feel” sorry.”
6.The above position was highlighted in T.V. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Ashok Khot and Another2 [2006(5) SCC 1]
7.The next question is whether for disobedience of the order passed by this Court, the respondents/contemners are liable to punishment? In this connection, we may refer to some of the legal provisions. Article 129 of the Constitution declares this Court (Supreme Court) to be “a Court of Record having all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for the contempt of itself”. Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, commit the person guilty of disobedience of an order of interim injunction to civil prison and direct his property be attached and sold. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus:
2A.Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction—
(1)In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Page 3178 rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unles
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
