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

1984 Supreme(Cal) 417

High Court Of Calcutta
I. P. SINGH
R.K.CHAKRAVARTY - Appellant
Versus
R.K.CHAKRAVARTY, COLLECTOR, CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISES, ALLAHABAD - Respondent
C. M. C. P.  300  Of  1984
Decided On : 12/18/1984

Advocates Appeared:
R.S.Dhawan

Alleged contempt must be categorized as either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt' and dealt with accordingly.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'Contempt of Court', 'SUBJECT': 'Procedure for Punishment of Contempt of Court', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Article 215 of the Constitution of India', 'Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971)', 'Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act', 'Article 225 of the Constitution', 'Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act', 'Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952', 'Rule 1 of Chapter I of the Rules', 'Rule 2 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules', 'Rule 4 (a) of Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules', 'Rule 4 (b) of Chapter XXX-E of the Rules', 'Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act'], 'SUMMARY': "The High Court has the power to punish contempt of itself under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Rules framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Act govern the procedure for punishment of contempt of court. Alleged contempt must be categorized as either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt'. Civil contempt cases are to be presented before a single Judge Bench, while criminal contempt cases are to be presented before a Bench of not less than two Judges. The application in the present case does not disclose a case of civil contempt and is therefore rejected."}

Fact of the Case:

The applicants, who are respondents in a writ petition, filed a contempt application alleging that the petitioners in the writ petition had abused the process of the court by obtaining an order by concealing certain facts.

Finding of the Court:

The application does not disclose a case of civil contempt and cannot be entertained or dealt with by a single Judge Bench.

Issues: Whether the alleged contempt is covered by the definition of 'civil contempt' or not.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'civil contempt' under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requires wilful disobedience to a court order or breach of an undertaking given to a court. The application in the present case does not allege any such disobedience or breach.

Final Decision: The contempt application is rejected.

I. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS contempt application has been moved under Article 215 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) by Mr. R. K. Chakravarty, Collector and Mr. Mahender Singh, Assistant Collector, Custom and Central Excise, Varanasi, applicants. (They are respondents in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 398 of 1984 moved under Article 226 of the Constitution by petitioners Messrs National Chemical Works Manduadih, Varanasi ). The relief sought in the present contempt petition is that this Court may charge the partners of the petitioner from (M/s National Chemical Works) jointly and severally and punish them for the abuse of the process of the court.

( 2 ) ARTICLE 215 of the Constitution runs as follows : "high Courts to be Courts of record :- Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. " obviously then the applicants are treating the alleged "abuse of process of the court' as contempt of Court.

( 3 ) HERE it may be noted that present contempt application was presented before me, sitting in a single Judge Bench of this Court for admission. The case is itself at admission stage.

( 4 ) NOW the current legislation on the subject of contempt of courts is the Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was brought on the Statute Book to "define and limit the powers of certain courts. "

( 5 ) SECTION 10 thereof provides as follows :-"power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts : Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. "obviously Section 10 above does not confer any new jurisdiction on the High Court but only recognises the initial inherent jurisdiction as Court of Record already having constitutional sanction under Article 215 of the Constitution:

( 6 ) BUT the question arises how this power is to be exercised by the High Court. Article 225 of the Constitution reads :"225 : Jurisdiction of existing High Courts : subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution : provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original Jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction. "article 225, therefore, recognises and affords sanction to the power of the High Court to 'make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts. ' section 23 of the Act provides :"power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules : the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure. "

( 7 ) THIS Court has framed Rules for the purpose which are mentioned in Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (here










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