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

2017 Supreme(All) 20

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Sanjay Harkauli, JJ.
Mahesh Narain Upadhya (419 Cont 2015) - Appellant
Vs.
Chanchal Kumar Tiwari & Ors - Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 11 of 2017
Decided On : 12-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bal Gangadhar Tripathi

The refusal to initiate contempt proceedings will not be a bar for taking any such action in the future.

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act - Special Appeal - The court declined to initiate contempt proceedings in a civil contempt matter arising out of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a Special Appeal questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings in a civil contempt matter arising out of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no regular appeal is provided against refusal to initiate contempt proceedings under the 1971 Act. The appellant's apprehension that the order of the learned Single Judge will not be complied with was deemed unfounded. The court suggested that the appellant proceeds to get his Special Appeal decided at the earliest and then seek compliance of the learned Single Judge's judgment.

Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal to initiate contempt proceedings in a civil contempt matter and the appellant's apprehension regarding compliance with the learned Single Judge's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the refusal to initiate contempt proceedings will not be a bar for taking any such action in the future, and suggested the appellant to proceed with getting the Special Appeal decided at the earliest.

Final Decision: The appeal stands consigned to records with the observations, and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Special appeal has been preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings in a civil contempt matter arising out of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that no regular appeal is provided against refusal to initiate contempt proceedings under the 1971 Act. It appears that the present Special appeal has therefore been framed as if presentable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules on the ground that dismissal of the petition virtually decides the case of the appellant on merits and it amounts to rendering an opinion which will directly affect the fate of the case, namely the Special Appeal, which has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the matter relating to the appellant.

4. We have considered the submissions raised and this appeal has been filed under an apprehension as if the appellant's case even if succeeds before the Division Bench, the order of the learned Single Judge will not be complied with.

5. This apprehension is not well founded, inasmuch as the other way around, another Division Bench has already taken a contrary view which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge while refusing to exercise discretion for initiating contempt proceedings. In our opinion, it would be more appropriate that the appellant proceeds to get his Special Appeal arising from the judgment in the appellant's case decided at the earliest for which he can move an appropriate application so that the said Special Appeal is disposed of. In the event the appellant remains successful then in our considered opinion the appellant will have a recurring cause of action to seek compliance of the learned Single Judge's judgment. Thereafter, he can initiate such proceedings and the refusal to initiate contempt proceedings will not be a bar for taking any such action in future.

6. The appeal stands consigned to records with the said observations.

C. M. Application No. 3962 of 2017

As the appeal has been filed beyond time by 7 days, an application for condonation of delay in support of an application has been moved.

As sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/appellant, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.

The appeal shall be treated to be within time.

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