Back
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
Contempt of Court - Limitation - Whether S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Art. 215 of the Constitution of India - Whether the High Court's power under Art. 215 to punish for contempt of itself summarily can be defined, limited or regulated by law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an industrial company, had entered into four agreements with the respondents 1 to 3 for purchasing four flats in a building owned by the respondents 1 to 3. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the respondents 1 to 3 tried to wriggle out of the said contracts. The petitioner took out four applications under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, being Special Suit Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 34 of 1980. Special Suit No. 33 of 1980 related to the agreement for the purpose of 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. On 10-1-85, the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 appeared before the Court and, by consent of the parties, interim orders passed in all the matters were directed to continue until further order of the Court. On 28-5-87, 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. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had committed contempt of Court by allowing the respondent 6 to occupy the said flat in contumacious disregard to the Court's order dt. 10-1-85. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint affidavit in opposition alleging that on 22-4-80 they had entered into an agreement with one Continental Consultants (P.) Ltd. for construction of the rest of the unfinished portion of the said building on terms and conditions contained in the said contract. Continental Consultants subsequently assigned their rights under the contract dated 22-4-80 to one Hanuman Industries (P.) Ltd. pursuant to the terms of the said agreement. They also contended that the said order dated 10-1-85 being a consent order, its violation, if any, does not amount to contempt of Court. The respondent 5, who is a close relation of the respondents 1 and 2 and employed by the Hanuman Industries (P.) Ltd., filed a separate affidavit in opposition admitting that Hanuman Industries sold the flat No. 12a on 21-7-84 to one Thirumbadi Rubber Co. Ltd. and possession of the said flat was delivered on 21-11-84. He stated that he is a stranger to the Special Suit No. 33 of 1980 and as such is not bound by the said order. The petitioner specifically alleged that the respondent 4 has full knowledge of the act of contempt as would be evident from Annexure-'a' to the affidavit in reply. The petitioner also expressly took the point in his affidavit in reply that S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires as it overrides and offends against the provisions of Art. 215 of the Constitution. The main defence taken by all the respondents was limitation u/s. 20 of 1971 Act, the vires of which was expressly challenged by the petitioner. The Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the High Court's power under Art. 215 to punish for contempt of itself summarily cannot be defined, limited or regulated by law. The Court further held that S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can co exist with the summary powers of the High Courts only as an alternative or additional procedure so far as Art. 215 is concerned and non-compliance thereof will not affect High Courts' power to punish. The Court also held that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can also co-exist as laying down, the law for contempt of courts subordinate to High Courts.
Issues: 1. Whether S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Art. 215 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the High Court's power under Art. 215 to punish for contempt of itself summarily can be defined, limited or regulated by law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's power under Art. 215 to punish for contempt of itself summarily cannot be defined, limited or regulated by law. 2. S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is ultra vires Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. 3. S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can co exist with the summary powers of the High Courts only as an alternative or additional procedure so far as Art. 215 is concerned and non-compliance thereof will not affect High Courts' power to punish. 4. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can also co-exist as laying down, the law for contempt of courts subordinate to High Courts.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of on the basis of the Court's findings. There was no order as to cost.
( 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
