Back
1988 Supreme(Cal) 441
High Court Of Calcutta
PRATIBHA BONNERJEA
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RAMNIWAS - Respondent
Matter 2421 Of 1987
Decided On : 12/12/1988
GANGWANI, SOMENATH CHATTERJI, TAPAS BANERJEE
The High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself is a special jurisdiction inherent in all Courts of Record and cannot be curtailed or regulated by the Parliament or the State Legislature.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Limitation - Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Whether ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Whether it curtails or regulates the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself - Whether the Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to make laws relating to Contempt of Court curtailing, regulating and curbing the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indian Tube Company Limited, had entered into four agreements with Poddar and Sharof, the respondent 3 herein, for purchasing four flats in the said premises being Flats Nos. 5e, 9e, 12a and 14a. These agreements contained arbitration clauses for resolving the disputes arising out of these contracts. Subsequently, disputes and differences arose between the parties and the respondents 1 to 3 tried to wriggle out of the said contracts. It is alleged that the Indian Tube Company was always ready and willing to perform its part of the said contracts. Under the circumstances, Indian Tube Company took out four applications under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, being Special Suit Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 34 of 1980. The Special Suit No. 33 of 1980 related to the agreement for purpose of the Flat No. 12a mentioned above. Immediately thereafter, four applications under S. 41 of the Arbitration Act were taken out for appointment of Receivers over these flats and for other orders. By an ad interim order dated 12-5-80, Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. (as he then was) restrained the respondents 1, 2 and 3, their agents and assignees from transferring, assigning, alienating, disposing of, letting out or dealing with the said flats concerned in any manner whatsoever until further orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Parliament and the State Legislature do not have the power to make laws relating to Contempt of Court curtailing, regulating and curbing the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to make laws relating to Contempt of Court curtailing, regulating and curbing the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India because it curtails the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself, which is a special jurisdiction inherent in all Courts of Record. 2. The Court held that the Parliament and the State Legislature do not have the power to make laws relating to Contempt of Court curtailing, regulating and curbing the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself because Article 215 of the Constitution of India vests this power exclusively in the High Courts.
Final Decision: The Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India and that the Parliament and the State Legislature do not have the power to make laws relating to Contempt of Court curtailing, regulating and curbing the High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself.
( 1 ) THE respondent 1 Ramniwas Poddar and the respondent 2 Keshar Dev Sharaf carry on business under the name and style of Poddar and Sharaf, the respondent 3 herein and are the owners of the premises No. 1 Belvedere Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the "said premises" ).
( 2 ) UNDER a scheme of amalgamation duly approved by this Court as well as by the Bombay High Court, the Indian Tube Company Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner as a result whereof all the assets and liabilities, rights and obligations of the Indian Tube Company Ltd. were taken over by the petitioner and the same stood transferred, merged and vested in the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE Indian Tube Company had entered into four agreements with Poddar and Sharof, the respondent 3 herein, for purchasing four flats in the said premises being Flats Nos. 5e, 9e, 12a and 14a. These agreements contained arbitration clauses for resolving the disputes arising out of these contracts. Subsequently, disputes and differences arose between the parties and the respondents 1 to 3 tried to wriggle out of the said contracts. It is alleged that the Indian Tube Company was always ready and willing to perform its part of the said contracts. Under the circumstances, Indian Tube Company took out four applications under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, being Special Suit Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 34 of 1980. The Special Suit No. 33 of 1980 related to the agreement for purpose of the Flat No. 12a mentioned above. Immediately thereafter, four applications under S. 41 of the Arbitration Act were taken out for appointment of Receivers over these flats and for other orders. By an ad interim order dated 12-5-80, Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. (as he then was) restrained the respondents 1, 2 and 3, their agents and assignees from transferring, assigning, alienating, disposing of, letting out or dealing with the said flats concerned in any manner whatsoever until further orders. All these applications were pending when the petitioner was amalgamated with Indian Tube Company and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to continue these proceedings. The respondents do not dispute these facts.
( 4 ) TWO orders were passed by Deb, J. (as he then was) subsequently on 22-6-82 and 23-6-82 w hereby a Special Officer was appointed with directions, inter alia, to inspect the four flats and the counsel for the respondent 1 appearing before Justice Deb assured the Court to render all assistance to the Special Officer. The Special Officer submitted his two reports both dt. 28-6-82 recording that flat No. 5e was occupied by Damodar Valley Corporation, Flat No. 9e was incomplete and lying vacant, the Flat No. 12a (which was to be on the 12th floor) and the Flat No. 14a (which was to be on the 14th floor) were incomplete as both the floors were under construction. No one was in actual occupation of the Flats Nos. 12a and 14a. These reports are Annexures-'b' and 'c' to the present petition. It also appears from the Annexures to this petition that Mr. R. L. Gaggar, Advocate on record of Indian Tube Co. Ltd. , informed the respondents 1, 2 and 3 about the order of injunction dated 12-5-80 by his letter dt. 12-6-80 and to the respondents 4 and 5 herein by his letter dt. 18-7-80. The said four special suits appeared in my list on 10-1-85 and an order was made as follows :-"by consent of the parties, interim orders passed in all the matters shall continue until further order of this Court. Cost cost in the arbitration proceeding. "
( 5 ) IT is alleged in para 18 of the present petition that on 28-5-1987 one of the representatives of the petitioner went to inspect the condition of the said premises and found that Flat No. 12a, the subject-matter of the Special Suit No. 33 of 1980, was in occupation of one Peria Malai Tea and Rubber Co. , the respondent 6 herein. It is the petitioner's case that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by allowing the respondent 6 to occupy the said fla
