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

1955 Supreme(All) 42

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
DESAI, BEG, JJ.
Ram Charan
Versus
Debi Dayal Dubey
Contempt Misc. Case No.21 of 1954
Decided On : 04-03-1955

Advocates:
M.N. Shukla, for Applicant; A.P. Pandey, for Opposite Party.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Disobedience of Injunction Order - President of Municipal Board - Service of Injunction Order - Knowledge of Injunction Order - Wilful Disobedience - Liability for Contempt.

Fact of the Case:

The President of the Municipal Board, Etawah, was alleged to have disobeyed an injunction order issued by the High Court restraining the Board from constructing shops on a disputed land. The President refused to accept the service of the injunction order and continued the construction work. The applicants, who were the owners of the land, filed a contempt petition against the President.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the President had knowledge of the injunction order on 9th June, 16th June, and 17th June, 1954, but he disobeyed the injunction and continued the construction work. The Court also found that the President, without just cause, refused to accept the service of the injunction order and also interfered with the process-server's duty of serving it upon him.

Issues: 1. Whether the President was bound to comply with the injunction order before it was served upon him through court? 2. Whether the President was guilty of contempt of court by disobeying the injunction order? 3. Whether the President was guilty of contempt of court by refusing to accept the service of the injunction order?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that a person is bound to comply with an injunction order as soon as he becomes aware of its existence, even if it is not served upon him through court. 2. The Court held that the President was guilty of contempt of court by disobeying the injunction order, as he had knowledge of the order and was bound to comply with it. 3. The Court held that the President was guilty of contempt of court by refusing to accept the service of the injunction order, as it was his duty to accept the order and comply with it.

Final Decision: The Court found the President guilty of contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and also pay the applicants their costs and the Government Advocate his fee, which was assessed at Rs.300/-.

Judgement

DESAI, J.:- This is an application for contempt proceedings against Sri Debi Dayal Dubey, President of the Municipal Board, Etawah; he is alleged to have disobeyed an injunction issued by this Court.

2. The applicants instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Etawah, against "the Municipal Board of Etawah through the Chairman, Municipal Board, Etawah", for injunction to restrain the Board from constructing shops at the back of the applicants shops nos.32 to 54 except nos.33, 39 and 43, situated in Humeganj Market of Etawah. The land in dispute was a strip 10 feet wide at the back of the shops and the Board was constructing shops to be let out to refugees on rent. The applicants contention was that the land belonged to them and not to the Board. The suit was contested by the Board which claimed ownership in itself over the land. It was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the applicants filed First Appeal No.146 of 1954 in this Court on 27-4-1954. During the pendency of the suit, the Civil Judge had granted a temporary injunction restraining the Board on account of which the work of constructing the shops had remained stayed. The temporary injunction came to an end on the suit being dismissed by the Civil Judge.

The Board resumed the construction and on the first appeal being admitted on 27-4-1954, the applicants applied to this Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the Board from making any further constructions during the pendency of the appeal. A notice of the injunction was issued to the Board and during its pendency this Court passed an ex parte injunction on 7-6-1954 restraining the Board and its servants etc., from making any constructions of any kind on the land till further orders. The applicant No.1 obtained from this Court a certified copy of the injunction order and the applicant No.2 approached the opposite party, the President of the Board, with an application to which the certified copy was attached on 9-6-1954 and requested him to stop further constructions in obedience to the injunction. The President read the application and the copy of the order but refused to act on them on the ground that he was not bound to do so until the injunction order was served upon him through court.

This Court sent out the notice to show cause and the injunction order on 14-6-1954 for service. The injunction order was addressed to "The Municipal Board, Etawah, through the Chairman, Municipal Board", and expressly restrained "you, your servants, workmen and agents from making any constructions of any kind on the land in suit till further orders". The injunction order reached the office of the Civil Judge, Etawah, who was to serve it on 16-6-1954. The same day he entrusted the service to a process-server Mangal Singh, who at once went to the office of the Board to effect service, but since it was past noon, he was informed that the President had left the office. Thereupon the process-server accompanied by the applicant No.1 at 1.30 p.m. went to Bharat Press where the opposite party works and met him and showed him the injunction order (and also the notice). He read them but refused to accept them contending that they were not addressed to him in his personal capacity and, therefore, could be served on him only in the office of the Board.

On the next day, i.e., 17-6-1954, the process server accompanied by the applicant No.1 again went to the Boards office in the morning but found the opposite party and the executive officer absent and the clerks refused to accept the order. Consequently, the process-server and the applicant went again to Bharat Press and met the opposite party, who again refused to accept the order and angrily asked them to clear out saying that the order could be served only in the office of the Board and not elsewhere. Thereupon the process server wrote out a report mentioning the facts and submitted it to the Civil Judge, who on 18-6-1954 ordered him to try again. Consequently, on 18-6-1954 the pro






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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