In contempt proceedings, the court requires absolute proof of violations due to their penal nature; any doubt favors the accused.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also considered the statement of the complainant recorded during the contempt proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’).

2. The case set up on the application moved under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was that the appellant had made further construction after an interim order was passed by the learned Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commercial Court’) on 02.07.2019 and, therefore, has violated the order passed by the Commercial Court. The learned Commercial Court proceeded to examine the application moved under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and evidence was led on behalf of the respondent/applicant. After the cross-examination was conducted, the Commercial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order on 24.08.2021, which was subsequently corrected vide order dated 13.09.2021 and it was directed to attach the property of the appellant and also send the appellant to civil jail for a period of 15 days for committing contempt of the order dated 02.07.2019.

3. The present appeal was filed by the appellant wherein he stated that on 02.07.2019, an order was passed by the Commercial Court to maintain the status quo with regard to new constructions only and alienation. It is his submission that so far as the property is concerned, no new construction was done after passing of the order dated 02.07.2019. However, with a view to coerce the appellant, an application was moved immediately on 05.07.2019 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

4. It is submitted that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent is relating to a development agreement entered into between the parties where the appellant was the developer and respondent was the land owner. The respondent had invoked the arbitration agreement and the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a Sole Arbitrator had rejected the application filed by the respondent under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’), seeking an interim prayer for disallowing any further construction.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the interim prayer under Section 17 of the Act of 1996 was thereafter allowed to the extent as noticed above by the Commercial Court and the appellant was restrained from making any alienation or making any new construction only. Thus, the existing construction was not required to be disturbed, however, in the garb of the said order, the contempt proceedings were wrongfully initiated against the appellant.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the application filed was a genuine case of violation of the interim order passed by the Court on 02.07.2019 in the presence of their own counsels. The appellant proceeded to make further construction, to which, an F.I.R. was registered by the respondent with the local Police Station and thereafter the contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for committing contempt was moved before the concerned Commercial Court. He asserts that there has been further construction after 02.07.2019 and the punishment awarded by the Commercial Court in the order passed on 24.08.2021/13.09.2021, do not warrant any interference.

7. He has also objected to the maintainability of the present appeal and relies on the judgment passed in the case of Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited and Others 2022 1 SCC 209

8. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the record as