Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sri L.V. Subrahmanyam, IAS, Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature At Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 1644-1645 of 2024 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25880-25881 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 1646 of 2024 @ SLP(C) No. 34866 of 2015
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 13 – Contempt of Court – Delay in compliance of Order of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act – Proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act are quasi judicial in nature and as Court comes to conclusion that act was neither deliberate or wilful, it could not have convicted appellants for Contempt of Courts Act – Impugned orders quashed and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Para 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Instant petitions challenge orders dated 14.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 by which Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, after convicting appellants herein imposed fine of Rs.500/-. High Court in the order observed that in absence of any explanation for delay, it would amount to wilful and deliberate violation of order of Court.
Findings of Court:
Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These petitions challenge orders dated 14.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 by which the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after convicting the appellants herein imposed a fine of Rs.500/-.
3. A perusal of the order itself would reveal that the High Court has come to a conclusion that though the order of which contempt was alleged was complied with but there was a delay in compliance of the same.
4. The High Court in the order observed that in the absence of any explanation for the delay, it would amount to wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court.
5. We are of the view that mere delay in complying with the order, unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged contemnors would not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi judicial in nature and therefore as the Court comes to a conclusion that the act was neither deliberate or wilful, it could not have convicted the appellants for Contempt of Courts Act.
6. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Contempt of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Contempt proceedings are liable to be closed or stayed when the subject matter of the alleged disobedience is sub judice before an appellate court, subject to the petitioner's liberty to revive if th....
Payments ordered in contempt proceedings classified as costs under CPC rather than fines, raising issues of compliance and clarity in judicial orders.
Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience of order passed by High Court in Notice of Motion in Commercial Arbitration Petition constitutes contempt of Court.
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act only lies from an order of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt; dismissal of a contempt application is not su....
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
