1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

APPEAL NO.311 OF 2008

IN

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.71 OF 2004

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2002

Capt. Kersy Ratonsha Driver

....

Appellants

Vs.

The Collector of Chennai & Ors. ....

Respondents

Mr.S.C. Naidu i/by C.R. Naidu and Co. for appellants.

Mr.R.M. Pardiwala i/by Mulla & Mulla Craige Blunt & Caroe

for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

Coram : J.N. PATEL &

SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.

Date : 8^th September, 2009

JUDGMENT (Per Smt.Justice R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)

1.

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the

learned Single Judge refusing to initiate action under the

Contempt of Courts Act,1971 against the respondents.

2.

The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the

maintenability of the appeal. They contend that in view of

Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 an appeal is

maintainable only against an order punishing for contempt and not

otherwise. An order declining to initiate proceedings for

contempt or an order of acquittal of the contemnor is not amenable

to appeal.

2

3.

For the reasons stated hereinafter, we uphold the preliminary

objection raised by the respondents. In our opinion plain reading

of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes it clear

that an appeal shall lie from any order or decision of the High

Court in exercise of it’s jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

The said provision reads as under :

“19. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie as of right

from any order or decision of High Court in the

exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt

-

(a)

Where the order or decision is that of a

single Judge, to a Bench of not less than

two Judges of the Court;

(b)

where the order or decision is that of a

Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided

that where the order or decision is that

of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner

in any Union territory, such appeal shall

lie to the Supreme Court.

(2)

Pending any appeal,the appellate Court may

order that--

(a) the execution of the punishment or order

appealed against be suspended;

(b)

if the appellant is in confinement, he be

released on bail; and

(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that

the appellant has not purged his

contempt.

(3)

Where any person aggrieved by any order

against which an appeal may be filed satisfies

the High Court that he intends to prefer an

appeal, the High Court may also exercise all

3

or any of the powers conferred by sub-section

(2).

(4)

An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be

filed-

(a)

in the case of an appeal to a Bench of

the High Court, within thirty days;

(b)

in the case of an appeal to the Supreme

Court, within sixty days, from the date

of the order appealed against.

Our view is supported by decision of the Apex court in Midnapore

Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors .,

reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT PAGE 2190. In the said

decision, the Apex Court observed that the appeal under Section 19

above would lie only against any decision or order of a High Court

passed in the exercise of it’s jurisdiction to punish for

contempt. The Jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When

no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say

that the High Court has exercised it’s jurisdiction or power as

conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore when the High Court does not impose any punishment on

the alleged contemnor, it does not exercise it’s jurisdiction or

power to punish for contempt and hence no appeal would lie against

such a decision. The Apex Court then after considering number of

its earlier decisions summarised the position as regards the

appeals against the orders in contempt proceedings. The same

reads as follows :

4

“11.

The position eme