An intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Bench in contempt proceedings if the order contains positive findings and directions relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated May 12, 2023 passed by the learned Single Bench in CPAN 431 of 2023 in WPA 22028 of 2013. By the impugned order the learned Judge had issued various directions and also directed personal appearance of the alleged contemners on June 23, 2023. The correctness of the order and direction has been challenged by the respondents in CPAN 431 of 2023 as alleged contemners.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners/contempt applicants has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this intra-Court appeal. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & ors. vs. Chinilal nanda & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) Supreme 752. Thus, the Court first requires to consider as to whether this intra-Court appeal is maintainable or not.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & ors. (supra) after taking note of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarizes the position with regard to appeals against the orders and contempt proceedings in the following manner:

“11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus:

I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceeding s for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave appeal to under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, (in other cases).”

4. With regard to facts of the case on hand, subparagraph 5 of paragraph 11 would be relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the High Court, for whatsoever reasons, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy and such an order is open to challenged in an intra-Court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Bench and there is a provision for intra-Court appeal). Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from a judgment of single Bench. Thus, what we require to see as to whether any order or direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, more particularly, in pages 8 and