IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M. Pandurangan - Petitioner
Versus
Dr. B. Chandramohan - Respondent
Cont. P. No. 2166 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022
Contempt of Court - Limitation - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 11, 20 - The court rejected the contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year without any valid reason, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court highlighted the exceptional circumstances under which the powers of contempt beyond the limitation period can be exercised, and the need to read Article 215 of the Constitution of India harmoniously with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The judgment emphasized the purpose of the law of contempt to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public, and the need to exercise contempt powers sparingly and judiciously.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition was filed to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying a court order dated 03.04.2019. The court rejected the petition as it was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of receipt of the order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the contempt petition not entertainable and dismissed it on the ground of delay.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year without any valid reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to adhere to the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and highlighted the exceptional circumstances under which the powers of contempt beyond the limitation period can be exercised. The judgment also underscored the importance of reading Article 215 of the Constitution of India harmoniously with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and the need to exercise contempt powers sparingly and judiciously.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed as not entertainable and on the ground of delay.
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondent for having committed the contempt of court for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 03.04.2019 made in W.P. No. 10976 of 2018.
The Contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order dated 03.04.2019, passed in W.P. No. 10976 of 2018. This Court has passed an order as follows :
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.’
2. The copy of the order was made ready on 27.06.2019 and the petitioner received the same on 03.09.2019. However, the petitioner has not initiated any action to pursue the order passed by this court within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the order. Now the contempt petition has been instituted after a lapse of about three years from the date of passing of the order, beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. This Court has decided the maintainability of the contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year without any valid reason. Under these circumstances, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation and this Court passed an order in Contempt Petition No.2539 of 2014 dated 05.12.2017 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :
6. Thus, it is clear that a limitation is prescribed for filing a contempt application against an order passed by the Court and one year period is prescribed from the date of cause of action arose. In the case on hand, the cause of action arose in August 2009 and the contempt application was filed on 15.07.2014. Thus, there is a delay of about 5 years even in filing the present contempt application.
7. Next question to be considered in this regard is that, whether this Court can invoke Article 215 of Constitution of India for entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year.
8. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that High Courts to be Courts of record “Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”
9. Thus, the Constitution provides powers to the High Court to punish for contempt itself. No doubt, such a power is granted for the effective implementations of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. However, this Court has to consider, whether such a power can be exercised beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, and under what circumstances.
10. The general principle of law in this regard is that whenever there is a Special Act enacted in respect of limitation, the powers conferred under the Constitution as well as the Special Act to be read cogently and harmoniously. Harmonious reading of these provisions, no doubt, the High Courts are empowered to exercise the power of contempt as the High Court is the Court of record
Prakash Kakubhai Rangwala Vs. Nyayalaya Karmachari Anne Nayayadish Hitkari Sangh and Another
O.P. Sreedhara Menon v. K. Amarnath Shetty
Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others
Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal
Hiralal Dixit v. State of U.P.
Subrata Kundu v. Kshiti Goswami
Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad thro. Registrar General
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be scrupulously followed, and the powers under Article 215 of t....
The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers onl....
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
Any contempt proceedings initiated must comply with the one-year limitation period stipulated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, barring exceptional circumstances.
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.