Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Shib Sadhan Sadhu, JJ.
Debashis Bose and others - Appellants
Versus
Punj Lioyd Ltd. and others - Respondents
M.A.T. 1927 of 2015 (CAN 12337 of 2015) (CAN 12338 of 2015)
Decided on : 08-01-2016.
CONTEMPT OF COURT - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL - SECTION 19 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - CLAUSE 15 OF THE LETTERS PATENT - MIDNAPORE PEOPLES' CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS V. CHUNILAL NANDA AND OTHERS - Intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order issuing a contempt rule simpliciter, as it is not a conclusive determination of the rights of the parties or a direction passed in a contempt proceeding affecting their rights.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the legality and propriety of an order passed by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court justifying the issuance of a contempt rule for invocation of a bank guarantee by the appellants. The appellants contended that the order was passed in violation of an earlier order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the impugned order was not a judgment deciding the rights of the parties under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, nor was it a direction passed in the contempt proceeding in aid of enforcement of an order.
Issues: Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order issuing a contempt rule simpliciter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Limited and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others, which held that an intra-court appeal is permissible when the Single Judge makes any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, provided there is a provision for an intra-court appeal. However, in the present case, the court held that the impugned order was not a direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, nor was it a direction passed in the contempt proceeding in aid of enforcement of an order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
Re: CAN 12337 of 2015
This mandamus appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 13 days delay in filing this appeal before this Court.
2. The reason for the delay has been explained by the appellants in the instant application for condonation of delay.
3. After hearing Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, we hold that the reason for the delay in filing this appeal has been sufficiently explained by the appellants in this application.
4. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. The application for condonation of delay thus, stands allowed.
6. Let the appeal now be registered.
Re:- M.A.T. 1927 of 2015 CAN 12338 of 2015
7. The legality and/or propriety of an order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 30th September, 2015 justifying issuance of rule in a contempt proceeding is under challenge before us in this appeal.
8. A question is raised as to maintainability of this appeal before us, while the appellant's application for stay is taken up for hearing. Since a question regarding maintainability of this appeal is raised, we like to decide the said question first before entering into the merit of this appeal and/or the stay application filed in connection with this appeal.
9. For proper appreciation of the present issue, we like to give a short background of the litigation leading to the passing of the impugned order by a learned Single Judge of this Court:
10. The legality of the termination of the contract was challenged before the Writ Court by the writ petitioner who was awarded with the work order in pursuance of the contract entered between the parties for construction of three medical colleges in West Bengal. Though several reliefs were claimed in the writ petition but ultimately the Learned Trial Judge, after noticing the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties for resolution of their dispute arising out of their contract, without entering into the disputed questions involved between the parties in the writ petition, disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.19 crores to the writ petitioner, as the Learned Single Judge found that such amount of Rs.19 crores was payable to the writ petitioner on the basis of the joint measurement of the work executed by the writ petitioner in pursuance of the contract.
11. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and/or order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, a mandamus appeal was filed by the State-respondents before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
12. In course of hearing of the said appeal, the fact relating to the invocation of the Bank guarantee by the State-respondents after disposal of the writ petition but before filing of the appeal was brought to the notice of the appeal court, but no exception was taken by the writ petitioner to the invocation of such Bank guarantee by the appellants even before the appeal court.
13. Considering the fact that both the parties agreed to get their dispute resolved through arbitration, the appeal court without entering into the dispute involved in the appeal, ultimately disposed of the said appeal on 24th February, 2015 with the following order:-
"In the light of the joint measurement order which reached its finality and the joint measurement which indicated certain amounts, the learned Judge opined that there is no justification to withhold the said Rs.19 crores. In the light of appellant authority already invoking bank guarantee for more than Rs.20.40 crores and also withholding of more than Rs.5 crores from running bills, we find no justification in the stand of the appellant authority to contend that when termination of contract is subject matter of arbitration, the present direction to pay Rs.19 crores was not justified. It is needless to say that this payment of Rs.19 crores arising out of jo
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
