Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and G.R.Majithia JJ.
R.P.Bhardwaj
Versus
Kiran Aggarwal
Civil Original Contempt Appeal No. 21 of 1988,
Decided On : OCTOBER 4, 1988
Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act - Appeal - Interpretation of the provision regarding the appeal under Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act
Fact of the Case:
The court interpreted Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act and considered whether an appeal could be preferred only if the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt by finding the contemner guilty.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that no appeal lies if the High Court does not exercise its power to punish, whether the petition is dismissed without hearing the respondent or after hearing the respondent. The court emphasized that Sec.19 does not make any distinction between criminal and civil contempt, and it relates to every order made by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Issues: Interpretation of Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act regarding the appeal and distinction between criminal and civil contempt
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that an appeal under Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act could be preferred only if the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt by finding the contemner guilty. The court emphasized that no appeal lies if the High Court does not exercise its power to punish, and Sec.19 does not make any distinction between criminal and civil contempt.
Final Decision: The appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.
1. Uniformly, the Supreme Court has been taking the view that under Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal could be preferred only if the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt which was interpreted by the Supreme court as punishing the contemner finding him guilty. Learned counsel sought to distinguish the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 2255 : (1975 Cri LJ 1), AIR 1978 SC 1014 : (1978 Cri LJ 772), and (1988) 3 SCC 26 on the grounds that these related to (1) criminal case and (2) dismissal of an application for punishing the contemner at the notice state itself. We are of the view that no distinction can be made whether the petition is dismissed without hearing the respondent or whether it is dismissed after hearing the respondent. In both the cases, as held by the Supreme Court, the Court does not exercise its power to punish and therefore, no appeal lies, Sec.19 also does not make any distinction between a criminal and civil contempt. It relates to every order made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
