The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Companies Act, 1956, to determine the maintainability of appeals and the jurisdiction of the single judge.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court):

1. The present letter patents appeals arise out of two orders, made by a learned single judge. The first, i.e., LPA 550/2014 impugns an order dated 21-08-2014 made in the course of contempt proceedings; the second, i.e., LPA 583/2014 challenges an order of the learned single judge made in the course of a company appeal, pending before him under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter called “Companies Act”). This common order deals with the question of maintainability of the present proceedings.

2. The facts briefly in LPA 550/2014, are that a contempt Petition (Contempt Case No 165/2008) was pending, in which the appellant, Shri Deepak Khosla, was apparently a party. The order dated 21.08.2014 traced the sequence of events in respect of certain proceedings, including the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 24-04-2012 in LPA 16/2014. The Division Bench had directed that the order of the learned single judge, dated 04-01-2012 in these proceedings be treated as a show cause notice, to be answered by Shri Khosla. His grievance in the appeal, LPA 550/2014 is in respect of directions made by the learned single judge, specially pertaining to his enrolment as an Advocate by the Karnataka Bar Council. He argues that such directions were unwarranted, made beyond jurisdiction of the learned single judge who was bound by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act to strictly proceed to decide whether the conduct complained of amounted to contempt. It was submitted that though ostensibly made in the course of contempt proceedings, the single judge’s directions travelled beyond what was permissible. It is argued, therefore, that the present appeal is maintainable.

3. Mr. Khosla, who represented himself argued that the appeal is maintainable, in terms of the judgment and directions of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank v Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399). Particular reliance is placed on the following observations:

“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 proceedings 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 to appeal under Article 136 of the Const