2020 Supreme(SC) 362

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Hukum Chand Deswal – Petitioner(s)
Versus
Satish Raj Deswal – Respondent(s)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 591 of 2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5350 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in hands of courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. (2) Contempt Proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 – Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Rule 3 – Initiation of contempt proceeding – Contours – In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of order is wilful – Contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in hands of courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act – Proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt – It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Para 16)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 – Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Rule 3 – Contempt of Court – Alleged wilful disobedience of directions given by Apex Court to pay outstanding dues before vacating suit premises – Respondent vacated suit premises before date prescribed in order of this Court – No damage was caused by respondent to structure in question – Respondent besides tendering unconditional apology has offered explanation pointing out that he was not in arrears and no amount was outstanding or payable to petitioner who had continued to infringe trademark belonging to respondent – Petitioner had moved executing Court to direct respondent to pay double amount of rent as compensation for unauthorised occupation of suit premises – First violation of not filing undertaking within two weeks, as directed, that per se cannot be basis to initiate contempt action against respondent – Special leave petitions were filed by respondent against order dated 28.1.2019 which did not deal with question regarding monthly rent payable by respondent but explicitly left parties to pursue the same before executing Court – Plaintiff/petitioner having acquiesced of that observation of High Court, cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary – It is not a case of intentional violation or wilful disobedience of order passed by this Court to initiate contempt action against the respondent – Instead, it would be open to parties to pursue their claim(s) in execution proceedings or any other proceedings, as may be permissible in law in respect of issue(s) under consideration – In such proceedings, all aspects can be considered by concerned forum/Court on merits in accordance with law – Contempt Petition disposed of with directions. (Paras 12, 13, 17, 19 to 25)

Facts of the Case:

Instant contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 and 5350/2019. The gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner/original plaintiff is that the respondent [defendant in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013] failed to file undertaking, as also, to pay the outstanding dues before vacating the suit premises and further, caused damage to the property before handing over possession thereof to the petitioner on 22.3.2019. Thus, the respondent committed wilful disobedience of and violated the directions given by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2019.

Findings of the Court:

Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we decline to precipitate the matter any further against the respondent. Instead, we deem it appropriate to discharge the show cause notice(s) and relegate the parties to such remedies as may be permissible in law to espouse their cause(s)/claim(s) including mentioned in the present contempt petition. All questions in that regard are left open to be decided by the concerned forum/Court appropriately as per law.

Result : Contempt Petition disposed of with directions.