IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Md. Sarfaraz Alam - Appellant
Versus
Md. Mofazzular Rahman And Others - Respondent
CC No. 27 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Contempt - Violation of Court Order - A.P.O No. 29 of 2020 - C.S No. 174 of 2019 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b) - The court discussed the nature of the Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt and how such jurisdiction should be exercised. It emphasized the need for a clear case of wilful disobedience to the Court's order before exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The judgment also highlighted the definition of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the essential ingredients of civil contempt.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged wilful violation of the order dated December 21, 2020, passed by a Coordinate Bench in A.P.O No. 29 of 2020, C.S No. 174 of 2019. The alleged contemnors failed to honor their obligation under the order, leading to a contempt application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order did not contain any injunction or mandate on the respondents, and there was no occasion for the Court to apply its mind and adjudicate the issue of the respondents bearing the petitioner's medical expenses. It concluded that the contempt application failed and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents wilfully violated the order dated December 21, 2020, and whether such violation amounted to contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for a clear case of wilful disobedience to the Court's order before exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It also clarified that the order in question did not contain any injunction or mandate on the respondents, and there was no breach of any undertaking given to the Court.
Final Decision: The contempt application failed and was dismissed, without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Banerjee, J. - This contempt application has been filed alleging wilful violation of the order dated December 21, 2020, passed by a Coordinate Bench in A.P.O No. 29 of 2020, C.S No. 174 of 2019. G.A. No. 1 of 2020 (Md. Sarfaraz Alam v. Md. Mofazzular Rahman & Ors.).
2. A brief factual background in which the order dated December 21, 2020, was passed may be helpful.
3. The petitioner and the alleged Contemnor Nos. 1 to 6 are all related to each other and are members of a larger family. They carried on business in co-partnership under the name and style of M/S. Serajuddin & Co. The business is of mining related activities. The alleged Contemnor No. 7 is the Chief Accountant of the partnership firm.
4. Disputes arose between the petitioners and the other partners of the firm. The alleged Contemnor Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit being C.S. No. 174 of 2019 against the petitioner herein, claiming inter alia, a declaration that the petitioner herein stands removed as partner of the said firm. In the said suit the petitioner herein has filed a counter claim praying for various reliefs including a declaration that the partnership firm stands dissolved pursuant to a notice of dissolution dated July 13, 2019, issued by him. In connection with such counter claim, the petitioner herein moved an interlocutory application in the suit praying for, inter alia, appointment of Receiver over and in respect of the business and assets of the said firm. The prayer for Receiver was not granted. Being aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal being A.P.O No. 29 of 2020, wherein the order dated December 21, 2020 came to be passed. The order reads as follows:
'The Court: An appeal is made on behalf of Md. Sarfaraz Alam for some money to be released for his immediate treatment for which Mr. Alam needs to travel to Singapore and incur considerable expenses.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have agreed to immediately release a sum of Rs. 50 lakh in favour of Mr. Alam to facilitate his travel to Singapore for treatment. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also agreed that in addition to the same being released immediately which will meet the expenses for travel and the like, money will be directly paid to the hospital upon the hospital raising bills and without any delay. However, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 say that the bills must be only pertaining to the treatment of Mr. Alam, his stay in hospital and elsewhere in Singapore and the incidental expenses pertaining to his wife who will accompany him. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also agreed that Mr. Alam's travel by air-ambulance to Singapore and expenses in such regard would be borne from out of the common funds.
It is hoped that in view of this gesture, the parties see reason and upon Mr. Alam's treatment in Singapore being successful, the parties would try to resolve the issues before the matter appears next on the second Monday of February, 2021.
It is made clear that the payment to be released immediately and for the medical expenses of Mr. Alam will be completely without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and will create no equity in favour of Mr. Alam. It is also agreed that upon final accounts being done, the expenses incurred for Mr. Alam's treatment will be debited from the entitlement, if any, of Mr. Alam.
The payment to be made to Mr. Alam for the purpose of his medical treatment will be treated as an interest-free loan till the accounts are finalised.'
5. The acts of contempt alleged by the petitioner are as follows:-
'(i) In spite of the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 6 warding off an order by agreeing to release a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of the petitioner to facilitate his travel to Singapore for treatment, the contemnors have thereafter resiled, whereupon, this sum had to be deposited with the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court;
(ii) In spite of the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 6 agreeing that in addition to Rs. 50 lakhs being released immediately, money will be paid
Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami
Jhareswar Prasad Paul-vs.- Tarak Nath Ganguly
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia
Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai
R. L. Kapur v. State of Madras
Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot
Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV
V. G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta
The judgment emphasized the need for a clear case of wilful disobedience to the Court's order before exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
The court ruled that civil contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience, which was not established due to the respondents' financial difficulties.
(1) Contempt of Court – Normally, question whether a party is guilty of contempt is to be seen in specific context of disobedience and wilful nature of same and not on the basis of conduct subsequent....
The court emphasized that the orders passed by the Courts must be fully honored and that the respect, confidence, and supremacy of judicial proceedings must be maintained at all costs to secure the r....
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
The court emphasized that contempt proceedings should only be initiated when there is a clear case of wilful disobedience of a court's order and that the respondents followed due process to extend cr....
Civil contempt is established when a party willfully disobeys a Court order, emphasizing the importance of compliance in maintaining judicial authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.