Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 648
High Court Of Delhi
SANDIP CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
VICE-ADMIRAL SUBHASH C.CHOPRA (RTD.) - Respondent
Decided On : 08/28/1998
The bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 applies in the case when a show cause notice is issued under the Act for initiation of proceedings for contempt.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - LIMITATION - INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - PERIOD OF ONE YEAR - SECTION 20 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S INHERENT POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT - ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed alleging contempt of court by the respondents for refusing to accept a notice served on them. The petition was initially filed as a civil contempt petition but was later converted into a criminal contempt petition. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the initiation of contempt proceedings was barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act applies in the case when a show cause notice is issued under the Act for initiation of proceedings for contempt. In the instant case, the court had not decided within a period of one year to initiate any proceedings. Therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the initiation of contempt proceedings is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? 2. Whether the court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is subject to the limitation period prescribed in Section 20 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 creates a bar in a court for initiation of any proceeding for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the alleged commission of contempt. 2. The court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is not subject to the limitation period prescribed in Section 20 of the Act. However, the court must initiate proceedings for contempt within a period of one year from the date of the alleged commission of contempt in order to exercise its inherent power.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
( 1 ) THE facts in brief are that in a petition preferred TO by the petitioner [c. M. (Main) No. 406/93] on 28. 10. 1993, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents therein. It is alleged that the said notice was taken and tendered to the respondents on 29. 10. 1993 at about 5. 30 p. m. Respondent No. 1 after reading the notice not only abused the petitioner and the process server, but also hurled abuses against the Court. Offensive, abusive and derogatory language was used by respondent No. 1 and he refused to receive the notice. For this alleged act on the part of the respondent, the petitioner on 1. 11. 1993 filed this petition praying for initiating proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act and to punish them in accordance with law for the alleged contempt, alleged to have been committed by them.
( 2 ) THE petition instituted on 1. 11. 1993, came up before the Court on 2. 11. 1993 and was adjourned from time to time till 10. 8. 1994, where the following order was passed:-
"the petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging that when notices were sent by this court to the respondents in CM (M) 406/93 and CM 2043/93, derogatory remarks were made by the respondents while refusing to accept the notices and such derogatory remarks have been reproduced by the process server in his report. I have seen the original notices appended in part-B of CM (M) 406/93. Prima facie, the report of the process server is not in consonance with law. Even the name of the process server is not appearing on the record. There is no proper affidavit of process server. Before proceeding further, let the petitioner file particulars of the process server who is stated to have tendered the notices to the respondent. This should be done within one week. List on 23rd August, 1994. "
( 3 ) THE petition without any effective proceedings continued to be adjourned till 22. 2. 1995. Needless to add that till that date neither any notice to show cause was directed to be issued to the respondents, nor the Court took cognizance of contempt, alleged to have been committed by the respondents. On that date, the following order was passed by learned Single Judge:-
"even if the allegations contained in this civil contempt petition are true, it will not constitute civil contempt. It may constitute criminal contempt. I am not inclined to take further action on this civil contempt petition. It is open to the petitioner to convert this civil contempt petition into a criminal contempt petition. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this civil contempt petition may be treated as a criminal contempt petition. The prayer is granted. The Registry is directed to number this civil contempt petition as a criminal contempt petition and list it before the appropriate Bench on 6th March, 1995. : Pursuant to the above order, the petition was posted on 6. 3. 1995 before Division Bench as a Criminal Contempt Petition on which date, for the first time, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt of Court proceedings be not initiated against them. The notice was made returnable for 5. 4. 1995. The order reads:- "notice to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against them, returnable on 05 April, 1995. "
( 4 ) IN response to the show cause notice, respondent No. 1 while denying the alleged incident and narrating the background of the suit filed by the petitioner against the club and proceedings therein stated that on 29. 10. 1993 after 5. 45 p. m. soon after he had finished meeting the representatives of Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, a person in civil attire was brought to him, who asked him to sign a paper and take notice of some documents filed by the petitioner in the High Court. On going through the papers, it was noticed by him that the text thereof was similar to
