IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
G.P. Chobey - Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Industries Ltd. - Respondent
CONT.APP.(C) 19 of 2022 and CONT.APP.(C) 20 of 2022
Decided On : 12-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exemption applications allowed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delay in appeals condoned. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. challenge against prior order. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. contempt findings and penalties outlined. (Para 8) |
| 5. dispute over interpretation of penalties. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. appeals disposed with stay orders. (Para 11 , 12) |
CM APPL.43325/2022 (exemption) in CONT.APP.(C) 19/2022
CM APPL.44149/2022 (exemption) in CONT.APP.(C) 20/2022
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are accordingly disposed of.
CM.APPL.43326/2022 (delay) in CONT.APP.(C) 19/2022
CM.APPL.44150/2022 (delay) in CONT.APP.(C) 20/2022
3. Present applications have been filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the appeals.
4. In view of the reasons stated in the present applications, the delay of 6 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
5. Accordingly, the present applications are allowed and disposed of.
CONT.APP.(C) 19/2022 in CM APPL.43324/2022
CONT.APP.(C) 20/2022 in CM APPL.44148/2022
6. The above captioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in EX.F.A.5/2021 titled as "M/s Nulon India Ltd. vs. Ishwar Industries Ltd.."
7. The appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 21.07.2022.
8. We have perused the same and vide para 24, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:
"24. Considering the above settled legal position and that the Contemnors have repeatedly made false and incorrect statements to the Court and have also raised misleading pleas in their pleadings and submissions only to remain in possession of the suit property for more than 15 years after the suit was filed, the contemnors are held guilty of contempt of this Court. The apologies tendered are accepted by the Court subject to the condition that the Contemnors-Mr.K.K. Golyan, Director and Mr.G.P. Chobey, the Authorized Representative of the appellant/Objector company shall pay Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively, to the respondent, within three months. If the said payments are not made, the Contemnors would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for 15 days each. Ordered accordingly. If the amounts as directed are paid, the show cause notice for contempt shall stand discharged and adjustment of 50% of the said amount shall be given by the Executing Court as part of the amount payable under the decree."
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount(s) of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- imposed towards fine are beyond the scope of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act whereas counsel for the respondent submits that the said amount(s) have not been imposed towards fine and are towards costs in terms of Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and only if the contemnors fail to pay the same, they will be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for 15 days each.
10. Since the said order is not clear to that extent, therefore, we hereby dispose of the present appeals requesting the learned Single Judge to clarify para 24 of the impugned order dated 21.07.2022.
11. In view of above discussion, both the appeals are disposed of.
12. Till the learned Single Judge passes fresh order, the direction passed in the order dated 21.07.2022 shall remain stayed.
Payments ordered in contempt proceedings classified as costs under CPC rather than fines, raising issues of compliance and clarity in judicial orders.
The assurance of the respondents regarding the timely passing of the order influenced the court's decision in disposing of the appeal.
Contempt of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Condonation of delay can be granted when public interest is involved, even if explanations for the delay are inadequate.
The decision emphasizes the necessity of special justification for imposing imprisonment as a punishment for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
No appeal lies against dismissal of contempt petition under Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 425 Companies Act; appealable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt.
Contempt action should proceed only for established willful disobedience of a court order, and the correctness of an order can only be addressed in appeal jurisdiction, not in a contempt petition.
Contempt proceedings are liable to be closed or stayed when the subject matter of the alleged disobedience is sub judice before an appellate court, subject to the petitioner's liberty to revive if th....
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.