The general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked for forcing the party to obey the injunction order when there is a special procedure and provision under the Civil Procedure Code for taking action for disobedience of an order of injunction.

Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act - Disobedience of Court Orders - Sections 10, 11, and 12 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the defense based on provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure under Order 39, Rule 2a to punish disobedience of court orders. The court referred to the case law and concluded that the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked for forcing the party to obey the injunction order when there is a special procedure and provision under the Civil Procedure Code for taking action for disobedience of an order of injunction. The court also discussed the distinction between civil and criminal contempts and the special jurisdiction of High Courts to institute proceedings for contempt and punish where necessary. The court held that it is not necessary for the High Court to take cognizance of complaints of disobedience of court orders under Section 10 of the Act, as the very Court itself, whose orders are alleged to have been disobeyed, is competent to pass appropriate orders giving reliefs to the aggrieved in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:

The complainants filed contempt petitions under Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused for disobedience of the orders made by the subordinate Courts. The cases involved disobedience of court orders related to electricity supply, harassment of a tenant, and interference with the management of a factory by a trade union.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that it is not necessary for the High Court to take cognizance of complaints of disobedience of court orders under Section 10 of the Act, as the very Court itself, whose orders are alleged to have been disobeyed, is competent to pass appropriate orders giving reliefs to the aggrieved in accordance with law.
Issues: The issues involved disobedience of court orders related to electricity supply, harassment of a tenant, and interference with the management of a factory by a trade union.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked for forcing the party to obey the injunction order when there is a special procedure and provision under the Civil Procedure Code for taking action for disobedience of an order of injunction. The court also held that it is not necessary for the High Court to take cognizance of complaints of disobedience of court orders under Section 10 of the Act, as the very Court itself, whose orders are alleged to have been disobeyed, is competent to pass appropriate orders giving reliefs to the aggrieved in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The court dropped the proceedings and stated that it is open to the complainants to seek appropriate reliefs before the Courts for disobedience of whose orders, these complaints are filed.

( 1 ) IN these three contempt petitions under Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the complainants have sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/ accused and to punish them in accordance with law of disobedience of the orders made by the subordinate Courts.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the these cases are as follows :-THE complainant in C. C. C. No. 605 of 1994 filed a suit in O. S. No. 92 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff, Chintamani, for a declaration that the notice in No. FA-K1p-652-53 dated 28-1-1993 issued by the respondent herein was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from disconnecting the electricity to installation No. KIP 19 of Chinnasandra village belonging to the complainant. After the notice was served, on the undertaking given by the respondent, the Court by its order dated 25-2-1993 directed not to disconnect power to the said installation of the complainant. To circumvent the aforesaid undertaking, it is alleged, the respondent issued another notice dated 21-12-1993 which was the subject matter of W. P. No. 1181 of 1994 filed by the complainant and this Court by its order (Annexure-C) dated 21-1-1994 directed not to disconnect the power to the complainant's installation while directing to treat the notice as show cause notice and to consider his objections thereon. The complaint of the complainant in this case is that despite the direction issued not only by the trial Court but also by this Court, the respondent-accused disconnected the electricity supply to the installation of the complainant. Hence this complaint. The case of the complainant in C. C. C. No 713 of 1994 is that he is a tenant under accused No. 1 in respect of house No. 34, 7th Cross, 2nd Main, Dinnur, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore, on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/- that as the landlord-accused No. 1 started harassing the complainant to vacate the premises, the latter had to file a suit in O. S. No. 2212 of 1994 on the file of the City Judge (CCH. 13), Bangalore, wherein he obtained an ad-interim order of temporary injunction on 20-4-1994 restraining respondents-accused 1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises. Despite the injunction was issued against the respondents, it is alleged, they have been interfering with the complainant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises in question. Hence, he has filed this complaint to initiate contempt proceedings against them for disobedience of the order of the Court below. Coming to the facts in C. C. C. 734 of 1994, the complainant here is a factory engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations and life saving drugs. Accused 1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and other accused are its members working in the complainant's factory. The last settlement entered into between the employees of the factory and the management was on 29-7-1990. Thereafter, the accused-Union gave a charter of demands which are pending discussion. On 6-9-1993 the Union had issued a notice threatening to go on strike and subsequently the accused resorted to force, violence and prevention of movement of goods, personnel, raw material and medicines to and from the factory. Therefore, the complainant filed a suit in O. S. No. 434 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Second Munsiff, Bangalore. Even though the complainant tried to settle the issue amincably, no settlement could be arrived at. The accused resorted to demonstrations, slogan shouting, intimidation of staff members etc. Hence, I. A. No. I was filed by the complainant seeking an order of temporary injunction. Since the strike pursuant to the strike notice dated 23-9-1993 did not materialise, the accused gave an undertaking before the learned Munsiff that since the strike had been called off, the Union and its members would not prevent movement of vehicles carrying raw ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(Kar) 224

Karnataka High CourtShaik Mohiddin - AppellantVersusSection Officer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Kaiwara - RespondentDecided On : 08-25-94C.C.C.A. : 605 of 1994

The general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked for forcing the party to obey the injunction order when there is a special procedure and provision under the Civil Procedure Code for taking action for disobedience of an order of injunction.

Karnataka High Court
Shaik Mohiddin - Appellant
Versus
Section Officer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Kaiwara - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-94
C.C.C.A. : 605 of 1994