Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Bhansali, CJ, Jaspreet Singh, J.
Subhash Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Srikant Goswami And Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2024
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1) - Maintainability of intra-court appeal - The court held that an intra-court appeal against an order dismissing contempt proceedings is not maintainable as the Act provides for appeal only against orders imposing punishment for contempt. (Paras 11, 70)
(B) Jurisdiction of Contempt Court - The court clarified that the contempt jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating the merits of the original dispute, and any directions or findings on merits would render the order appealable. (Paras 11, 70)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal against the dismissal of contempt proceedings, arguing that the contempt court had entered into the merits of the case by finding substantial compliance with a prior order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the contempt court did not overstep its jurisdiction and that the intra-court appeal was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether an intra-court appeal lies against an order dismissing contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contempt court's role is limited to determining compliance with its orders, and any findings on merits would necessitate an appeal.
Result: Intra-court appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. More often than not this Court is recurringly vexed with an issue of seminal importance relating to the maintainability of an intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Rules of the Court’) from orders emanating from contempt proceedings.
2. This intra-court appeal too, has been filed by the appellant, who was the petitioner before the Contempt Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Contempt Application (civil) 2200 of 2016 (Subhash Chandra Vs. Shri Srikant Goswami MD. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gramin Vikas Ltd.) whereby the Contempt Court finally disposed of the contempt petition holding that there was substantial compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the writ court and it also gave liberty to the contempt-petitioner that in case if he was aggrieved by the order of compliance dated 22.05.2024, he could approach the appropriate Forum.
3. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset had raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant intra-court appeal on the ground that in light of Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1971), the contempt appeal will only lie against an order passed by the Contempt Court awarding a punishment to a contemnor. This necessarily implies that an appeal can only be filed by a person who is a respondent in the contempt proceedings and not by one who is petitioner in the contempt proceedings.
4. In the instant case, it is pointed out that since the Contempt Court found that substantial compliance of the order passed by the writ court had been made, hence, the Contempt Court did not find it worthwhile to proceed, consequently, the proceedings were dropped, leaving it open for the Contempt-petitioner, if aggrieved against the order of compliance to raise his grievance before the appropriate Forum.
5. It has further been urged that the Act of 1971 is a Special Act which envisages a Forum of appeal only in terms of Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1971 and it does not contemplate filing of an appeal against an order whereby the contempt proceedings are disposed of or dropped or dismissed. In such circumstances where the appeal in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971 is not maintainable then the appellant herein in the garb of an intra-court appeal cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to achieve something indirectly which is prohibited by the Act of 1971, directly.
6. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents has further urged that the only remedy which is available to the contempt-petitioner against an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings, dropping contempt proceedings or dismissing contempt proceedings is to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
7. It has also been submitted that since the object of the Act of 1971 is to regulate the manner in which the Contempt Court exercises its powers, which primarily inheres in every High Court by virtue of it being a court of record, and thus the Act of 1971 be treated as a special Act vis-a-vis the High Court Rules of 1952 which in this case be treated as the general law under which the intra-court appeal is filed.
8. The thrust of the submission is that once a special act which governs the subject and prohibits or restricts a right of appeal, which needless to say is a creature of a statute, then the general law must give way to the special law and for the aforesaid reason, the intra-court appeal against an order dismissing the contempt petition would not be maintainable.
9. It is further submitted that this issue has been raised before this Court in a number of cases and it has been consistently held that an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against an order dis
An intra-court appeal against an order dismissing contempt proceedings is not maintainable as per Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which allows appeals only against orders imposing ....
The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable for interlocutory orders, but an intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act may be allowed if a....
The appeal process under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act requires a connection with an order punishing for contempt; proceedings not fulfilling this criterion are non-appealable.
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
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
