SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(AP) 1353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Rajeshwar Tiwari – Appellant
Vs.
Hindu Aided Elementary School and Ors. – Respondent
Contempt Appeal No. 11 of 2014
Decided On : 04.12.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Advocate General
For Respondents/Defendant: P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - An Act to define and limit powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto - Appellant on receipt of notice in Contempt Case filed by the respondents before Trial Judge has brought this Contempt Appeal against order of Trial Judge - Dispose of this appeal so far as imposition of fine is concerned - Judge and find with great respect that His Lordship has not recorded any finding that alleged contemnor who is appellant before us has willfully disobeyed order of Court - In absence of recording any finding specifically no punishment can be imposed for civil contempt - Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment decree direction order writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court – Held, Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature alleged contemnor must be told clearly about charges and decide if denied correctness of such complaint - It has to be indeed with requirement of law - This basic legal requirement is not mere formality but a facet of natural justice - Court cannot afford to deny it - Hence delete the punishment of fine - However think since respondent has incurred expenses for filing Contempt application a sum of shall be paid to him by way of costs - At first instance State shall pay the costs to respondent/applicant within fortnight from date of receipt of copy of this order - It would be open for State Government if so minds to recover costs from person or persons who are responsible for non-implementation of order within the time mentioned by Hon’ble Trial Judge proportionately - Appeal Allowed (Para 3)

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J.

1. The appellant, on receipt of notice in the Contempt Case filed by the respondents herein before the learned Trial Judge, has brought this Contempt Appeal against the order of the learned Trial Judge in C.C. No. 2186 of 2013 dated 24.11.2014. We dispose of this appeal so far as the imposition of fine is concerned.

2. We have carefully read the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and we find with great respect that His Lordship has not recorded any finding that the alleged contemnor, who is the appellant before us, has willfully disobeyed the order of the Court. In the absence of recording any such finding specifically, no punishment can be imposed for the civil contempt, which is defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and it is reproduced as follows.

"civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court."

3. The contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, the alleged contemnor must be told clearly about the charges and decide, if denied, the correctness of such complaint. It has to be indeed, with the requirement of law. This basic legal requirement is not mere formality, but a facet of natural justice. The Court cannot afford to deny it. Hence, we delete the punishment of fine. However, we think since the respondent has incurred expenses for filing the Contempt application, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to him by way of costs. At the first instance, the State shall pay the costs to the respondent/applicant within fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It would be open for the State Government, if so minds, to recover the costs from the person or persons, who are responsible for non-implementation of the order, within the time mentioned by the Hon'ble Trial Judge proportionately.

4. The Contempt Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, we make it clear that the contempt proceedings initiated for implementation of the order are pending.

5. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

Appeal Partly Allowed



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top