Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, a registered society. – Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1405-1406 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34892 of 2014)
Decided On : 30-01-2024
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 215 – Contempt of Court – Undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying things done in violation of its orders – In addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering punishment meted out to him – Court has duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying things done in violation of Court order and in that regard, Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of proceedings. (Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – Civil contempt – Violation of a conditional stay order, in usual course, would entail vacating thereof in a properly constituted proceeding – Vacating of stay order in appeal by High Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction did not assume either a restitutive or a remedying character – By resorting to such a step while exercising contempt jurisdiction, High Court was not acting in furtherance of settled principle – Concluded act in violation of status quo order in relation to possession of suit premises amounted to ‘civil contempt’ under Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and warranted appropriate consequences under provisions thereof – However, without taking recourse to such a step, High Court thought it fit to vacate stay order in appeal so as to enable Trust to execute decree – This action of High Court clearly transgressed scope and extent of its contempt jurisdiction and cannot be sustained – Impugned order set aside – However, as High Court desisted from exercising contempt jurisdiction, owing to this misconceived measure, despite finding contemnor guilty of willfully violating status quo condition in stay order, it is appropriate to remand the matter to High Court for continuing with that exercise. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Focus in this appeal is on scope and extent of contempt jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Findings of Court:
As the Trust asserts that stay order stood vacated automatically owing to default by Society in making deposits, it is for Trust to take appropriate steps. Trust would be at liberty to take all such measures as are permissible in law in that regard, be it before High Court or Executing Court.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Focus in this appeal is on the scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. By judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in C.P.A.N. 2113 of 2013 in F.A. No. 229 of 2010, a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta held that the act of the contemnor therein was in willful disobedience to the stay order passed in the first appeal and was not only contemptuous but also illegal and invalid. However, instead of initiating proceedings for contempt, the Division Bench opined that justice would be subserved by vacating the stay order passed in the first appeal. Aggrieved by this turn of events, the contemnor is before this Court.
4. By order dated 27.01.2015, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court at Calcutta.
5. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust, Kolkata (for brevity, ‘the Trust’), was the plaintiff in T. Suit No. 164 of 2004, filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for damages, before the learned 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore. This suit was instituted by it against Baitanik, a registered society (for brevity, ‘the Society’), which was in occupation of the premises, detailed in suit schedules A and B, situated at 4B, Elgin Road (now, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani), Bhawanipore, Kolkata. The Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 25.02.2009 and directed delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust within 30 days. Execution proceedings were initiated by the Trust on 30.07.2009.
6. While so, the Society preferred an appeal in F.A.T. No. 321 of 2009 against the judgment dated 25.02.2009, which was thereafter renumbered as F.A. No. 229 of 2009, before the High Court at Calcutta. Therein, an interim order was passed on 03.03.2010 in CAN 7021 of 2009 (application for stay) in the following terms: -
1) There shall be an unconditional order of stay of all further proceedings in title execution case pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Alipore, for a period of eight weeks.
2) The appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac only) with the learned Registrar General of this Court by eight weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal.
3) The appellant must go on depositing current occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) only per month for the suit premises during the pendency of the appeal with the learned Registrar General of this Court. First of such deposit for the month of March, 2010 is to be made by April 16, 2010. All subsequent deposits are to be made by fifteenth of each succeeding month for which the same is due and payable.
4) All these deposits are to be made by the defendant no. 1-appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal.
5) If the defendant no.1-appellant deposits Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac ), only and goes on paying the monthly occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) only, the interim order of stay shall continue till the disposal of the appeal.
6) The learned Registrar General is requested to invest the amounts that may be deposited by the appellant in; short term renewable interest bearing fixed deposits scheme with any nationalized bank of his choice. He is, further, requested to see that such fixed deposits are renewed from time to time during the pendency of this appeal subject, however, to any order that may be passed in this appeal.
7) In default of the deposits, as aforesaid, the interim order of stay shall stand vacated and the decree shall be executed at once.
However, we clarify that pendency of
Contempt of Court – Undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying things done in violation of its orders – C....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
The judgment emphasizes the need for a speaking order to extend the stay beyond six months, as per the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of I....
Willful disobedience of a court order requires knowledge of the order; lack of such knowledge negates contempt.
Contempt proceedings cannot substitute for enforcement of binding court decisions; non-compliance must involve clear disregard of valid orders. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is limited to ens....
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
