IMPORTANT POINT
When the observations made by the learned Single Judge, while issuing notice in the contempt petition, is only for the prima facie satisfaction as to whether the contempt petition needs to be considered on merits Section 19(1)(a) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would not be attracted.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by an order dated 14th February, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal (LDG.) No.2 of 2017. The said appeal was filed against the order dated 22nd December, 2016 in Contempt Petition No. 17 of 2016 in Suit No. 802 of 2014.

3. The appellant filed a Contempt Petition alleging that the respondents herein had not honoured the consent decree drawn on 14th August, 2015, and hence they are liable to be punished for contempt. It appears that the appellant had also initiated execution proceedings, since in the decree, it is stated that in case the terms of the consent are violated, the suit would stand decreed in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. Be that as it may, we find from the order dated 22nd December, 2016 of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has admitted the contempt petition and has issued notice to the respondents. It is, at that stage that the respondents filed an intra-Court appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Court admitted the appeal, despite the objections regarding the maintainability, leaving the question of the maintainability of the appeal to be considered at the time of final hearing.

4. It appears from the impugned order passed by the Division Bench that, during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, a direction was issued to deposit an amount of Re. 1,00,00,000/- which has subsequently been withdrawn by the appellant as per Order dated 21st July, 2017 passed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to two decisions of this Court in R.N. Dey and Others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others, (2000)4 SCC 400 and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Others, (2009)2 SCC 784 and made a persuasive submission regarding the maintainability of the appeal. We are afraid that the decisions relied upon by the respondents do not further their case, in the given facts and circumstances. R.N. Dey (supra) was a case where the High Court declined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor. It was in that context that this Court held that the contemnor could file an appeal since he was otherwise entitled to be discharged in case the unconditional apology had been accepted. In other words, this Court was of the view that the decision to reject the unconditional apology and proceed further was an order or decision to proceed to punish the contemnor. Hence, it was held that such a decision or order was appealable. That is not the situation in the present case. And in any case, at paragraph 13, the Court made it clear that “In the present proceedings the question whether appeal under Section 19 is maintainable or not is not required to be decided finally as, in our view, facts of this case are grossly inadequate and the contempt proceedings were not required to be initiated at all.” In Tamilnad Mercantile Bank (supra), this Court referred to Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 and took the view that though an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, may not be maintainable against certain orders, still the aggrieved person can file an intra-court appeal if in the impugned order an issue has been decided or a direction has been issued, relating to the merits of the disputes between the parties, in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. No doubt, in paragraph-39, this Court has held that an appeal would be maintainable even against a notice to show cause. But it has to be seen that such a notice is in a case where the court, preceding the notice, had decided some disputes raised before it. Hence this Court guardedly put a caveat as follows: “Thus, in a given situation, an appeal would be maintainable even against a notice to show cause”. In other words, notice referred in paragraph-3