1. Contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with a court order directing the release of outstanding dues following reinstatement of an employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through Lrs – Petitioner
Versus
S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao And Another – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1002-1003 of 2023 In Civil Appeal Nos.6732-6733 of 2009
Decided on : 19-08-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms.
Contempt of Court – Contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Non-compliance with court orders
Act Referred
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Element of mens rea, essential for sustaining charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from factum of delay – Contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms – However, prolonged non-disbursal of funds, despite successive directions at various stages of litigation, and fact that litigation has remained pending since 1980s, a reasonable lump sum payment is warranted, both in acknowledgement/recognition of protracted delay in disbursal of dues and to bring quietus to future litigation by granting compensation – Although Bank did not effect payment within time permitted by Court, material placed on record do not demonstrate that delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent – Claim for pensionary benefits rejected – Respondent-Bank shall pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to widow of deceased Petitioner – Contempt proceedings disposed of. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
These contempt petitions have been preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 17.01.2018 while dismissing the Civil Appeal Nos. 6732-6733 of 2009, whereby the respondent-Bank was directed to release the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner within a period of three months as ordered by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Result : Contempt petitions disposed of with observations/directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Jaju, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Hanu Parashar, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Jaju, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Hanu Parashar, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges wilful disobedience and entitlement to pension; Respondent claims administrative delays due to bank merger and absence of court direction regarding pension. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Delay in payment without contumacious intent or mens rea does not constitute civil contempt; contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to assert new substantive claims. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 )
4. Civil contempt requires deliberate and intentional breach; mere delay in compliance without wilful disobedience or mens rea does not attract contempt jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Contempt proceedings discharged; pension claim rejected; respondent directed to pay lump sum compensation for protracted delay in disbursing dues. (Para 21 )
6. What constitutes wilful disobedience in civil contempt proceedings?
Civil contempt requires a breach that is deliberate and intentional. Mere delay in complying with a court order, without evidence of contumacious intent or mens rea, does not attract contempt jurisdiction, especially when administrative hurdles are present. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Can new substantive claims be raised during contempt proceedings?
No. Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs that were neither raised nor granted in the original proceedings or adjudication mechanisms. (Para 19 )
8. Can a court grant compensation for delayed payment even if contempt is not established?
Yes. Where prolonged non-disbursal of dues occurs despite successive directions and protracted litigation, the court may award a reasonable lump sum payment as compensation to acknowledge the delay and bring quietus to the litigation. (Para 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. These contempt petitions have been preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 17.01.2018 while dismissing the Civil Appeal Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009, whereby the respondent- Bank was directed to release the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner within a period of three months as ordered by the High Court.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present contempt petitions are that the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash was working as the Manager with the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. He was dismissed from service on the grounds of certain irregularities in the sanctioning of loans, overdrafts, cheques discounting, and delay in reporting. The dismissal was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the Petitioner - A. K. Jayaprakash.
3. Challenge to this decision was made before the Madras High Court by the Bank on the plea that the Labour Commissioner should not have proceeded to decide the matter being beyond the period of limitation, and the said plea/ground taken has not been decided. This led to the remand of the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh decision with the direction to decide the issue of delay first and thereafter the merits.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on remand, proceeded to decide the said question of delay by condoning the same on the basis of the medical certificate produced. The mis-conduct as alleged against the Manager was also found to be not based on any justifiable grounds apart from the fact that there was no mala fide or dishonesty involved in the conduct. No loss was also caused to the Bank. Rather, the business of the Bank had improved and the loans recovered on time. Thus, reinstating the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash.
5. This was again challenged before the Madras High Court, where the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was upheld. However, the back wages were limited to 60%.
6. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, where the Bank approached, dismissed the appeal. It would not be out of the way to mention here that in the meantime, the Nedungadi Bank came to be merged with Punjab National Bank and therefore the appeals were preferred by the Punjab National Bank before this Court being Civil Appeal Nos.6732-6733 of 2009, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2018. The said order reads as follows:-
“Heard.
We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is made clear that the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months.
Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.”
7. The above direction having not been complied with which mandated payment of outstanding amount within three months, the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash submitted his representation not only claiming the back wages but also the pension, pensionary benefits and the provident funds etc. The said representation of the Petitioner was considered and rejected. The benefit of back wages was also not released although the said claim was not denied. Despite various representations having been submitted with no result, the present contempt petitions have been preferred by the Petitioner- A.K. Jayaprakash.
8. Upon notice having been issued, reply has been filed, wherein it is found that the Petitioner would not be entitled to the pensionary benefits. As regards the other benefits relating to the back wages and the provident fund dues are concerned, the same stands disbursed. The details thereof are as follows:-
| Sl.No. | Particulars | Amount | Paid on | Details of the Bank Account in which the amount was credited. |
| 1 | Arrears of Salary for the period (60% back wages from 1.8.1985 to 10.12.2004 | Rs.16,11,330.52 | 04.03.2019 | 429900010 |
