2010 Supreme(SC) 179

2010 (2) Supreme 266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
P.K. Singh — Appellant
versus
M/s. S.N. Kanungo and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2002
Decided on : 18-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The right of the judgment debtor to make an attempt to adjust the decree is independent and cannot be treated as contempt of court.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 14-Appeal against judgment of High Court in Contempt Application by which appellant was held guilty of contempt of court and was directed to pay the cost of the application to respondent-Evidence on record that after Award of the arbitrator was confirmed by Division Bench of High Court, appellant had made an attempt to adjust the decree in terms of Order XXI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure by requesting the respondent to accept principal amount and waive the interest awarded thereon- The contents of two letters written by appellant to respondent not showed that any attempt was made by appellant to sit in appeal over judgment of High Court- No indication in said two letters that appellant had criticized High Court for awarding interest in favour of respondent-Evidence on record however indicated that within the framework of law,appellant had made an attempt to persuade respondent to forego claim relating to interest-Having regard to interest of department concerned, appellant had addressed letters to respondent to adjust Award-The letters for adjustment of Award could not be treated as contempt of court within the meaning of provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- The tenor of letters not indicated that there was any willful disobedience on part of appellant in not complying with judgment of High Court-High Court had held that asking respondent to accept only principal amount amounted to violation of judgment of High Court- Though High Court ostensibly proceeded to examine the question whether violation of judgment of High Court would amount to contempt of court, said question was neither determined nor answered one way or the other- The error of law committed by High Court was that without answering the question whether the violation of judgment amounts to contempt of court, High Court presumed that violation of judgment amounts to contempt of court and proceeded to examine question whether the violation of judgment was willful or deliberate- After reaching the conclusion that violation was neither willful nor deliberate,High Court should have at once dropped contempt proceedings and could not have accepted unconditional apology tendered by appellant nor could have imposed cost on the appellant- In any view of matter, High Court, after accepting the unconditional apology tendered by appellant, should not have imposed cost on appellant for negligence and reckless manner in which it had allegedly acted in the instant case- Impugned judgment hence held unsustainable-Appeal allowed. (Paras 7 to 11)

        Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Order XXI Rule 2 –Scope and ambit of-Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC relates to payment of amount to a decree holder out of court and inter alia provides that when any wrong payment under a decree of any other kind is paid out of court to the decree holder, the decree holder has to certify payment made as required by said Rule- An agreement, which extinguishes the decree as such in whole or in part and results in the satisfaction of the decree in respect of the particular relief or reliefs granted by the decree, is an ‘adjustment’ within the meaning of this Rule- It is open to the parties to enter into a contract or compromise with reference to their rights under decree- If the contract or the compromise amounts to an ‘adjustment’ of decree, it must be recorded under this Rule and unless so recorded cannot be recognized by executing court- Adjustment is not the same as satisfaction of decree but is some method of settling decree which is not provided for in the decree itself. (Para 7)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court in Contempt Application by which appellant was held guilty of contempt of court and was directed to pay the cost of the application to respondent.

       Findings of the Court :

        Evidence on record that after Award of the arbitrator was confirmed by Division Bench of High Court, appellant had made an attempt to adjust the decree in terms of Order XXI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure by requesting the respondent to accept principal amount and waive the interest awarded thereon. The contents of two letters written by appellant to respondent not showed that any attempt was made by appellant to sit in appeal over judgment of High Court. There was no indication in said two letters that appellant had criticized High Court for awarding interest in favour of respondent-.Evidence on record however indicated that within the framework of law, appellant had made an attempt to persuade respondent to forego claim relating to interest.Having regard to interest of department concerned, appellant had addressed letters to respondent to adjust Award.The letters for adjustment of Award could not be treated as contempt of court within the meaning of provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The tenor of letters not indicated that there was any willful disobedience on part of appellant in not complying with judgment of High Court.High Court had held that asking respondent to accept only principal amount amounted to violation of judgment of High Court. Though High Court ostensibly proceeded to examine the question whether violation of judgment of High Court would amount to contempt of court, said question was neither determined nor answered one way or the other. The error of law committed by High Court was that without answering the question whether the violation of judgment amounts to contempt of court, High Court presumed that violation of judgment amounts to contempt of court and proceeded to examine question whether the violation of judgment was willful or deliberate. After reaching the conclusion that violation was neither willful nor deliberate, High Court should have at once dropped contempt proceedings and could not have accepted unconditional apology tendered by appellantnor could have imposed cost on the appellant.In any view of matter, High Court, after accepting the unconditional apology tendered by appellant, should not have imposed cost on appellant for negligence and reckless manner in which it had allegedly acted in the instant case. Impugned judgment of High Court was hence held unsustainable. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.