SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




Payments ordered in contempt proceedings classified as costs under CPC rather than fines, raising issues of compliance and clarity in judicial orders.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act - Section 12 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 35A - Contempt proceedings initiated against contemnors for making false statements - Learned Single Judge held contemnors guilty and ordered payment of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- as costs, with a threat of imprisonment - Payments classified not as fines, but as costs under CPC. (Paras 8-10)

(B) Appeal - The need for clarity regarding the nature of payments imposed and their classification was highlighted. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The appeals challenged the order of the learned Single Judge who found the contemnors guilty of contempt for misleading the court over 15 years.

Findings of Court:
Both appeals are disposed of with directions for clarification regarding the previous order.

Issues: The main issue concerned the interpretation of the amounts ordered by the Single Judge as fines versus costs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court sought to clarify the nature of payments imposed by the Single Judge under the contempt proceedings to ensure compliance and enforcement of the order.

Result: Appeals disposed of with a request for clarification.

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)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top