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

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11844

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
SHARMATHALI.K.P – Appellant
Versus
P.S.PRAMOJ SANKER – Respondent
WA 621/2025



Advocates:
C.V.MILTON, DEEPU THANKAN

An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt, not against orders declining to initiate or dropping contempt proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a contempt case for non-compliance with a court order - The court found substantial compliance with the previous judgment and closed the contempt case. (Paras 2-9)

(B) Appealability in contempt proceedings - An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt, not against orders declining to initiate or dropping contempt proceedings. (Paras 4-6)

(C) Intra-court appeal - If an issue is decided on the merits independent of contempt proceedings, an intra-court appeal is maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of a contempt case regarding the disbursement of Provident Fund closure dues and Staff Welfare Fund, asserting non-compliance with the court's directions.

Findings of Court:
The court found substantial compliance with the directions issued in the prior judgment, leading to the closure of the contempt case.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and whether the contempt case was appropriately closed due to substantial compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only orders imposing punishment for contempt are appealable under Section 19, and substantial compliance with court orders negates the basis for contempt.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant has filed this writ appeal as an intra-court appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No.119 of 2024, which arises out of the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.24403 of 2023. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of that judgment dated 15.01.2025 in Contempt Case (C) No.119 of 2024 read thus:

“2. As per the judgment, the respondents were directed to disburse Provident Fund closure due to the petitioners, with statutory interest until the date of payment, and the Staff Welfare Fund to the petitioner within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

3. An affidavit dated 16.12.2024 has been filed by the respondent, detailing the amounts paid along with the interest.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the calculation is not strictly in tune with the directions issued by this Court. However, despite grant of time, the said assertion has not been substantiated. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that there has been substantial compliance with the directions in the judgment. This Contempt Case is closed.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC for the respondent.

3. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with appeal. As per sub-section (1) of , an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the 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. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of , 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. As per sub-section (2) of , 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. As per sub-section (3) of , 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 or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). As per sub- section (4) of , 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 60 days from the date of the order appealed against.

4. InMidnapore Peoples’ Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399], after referring to the law laid down inBaradakanta Mishra [(1975) 3 SCC 535] Purshotam Dass Goel [(1978) 2 SCC 370],State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy [(1996) 4 SCC 411] and J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6 SCC 291] the Apex Court summarised the legal position emerging from those decisions in regard to appeals filed under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act against orders in contempt proceedings. Paragraph 11 of that decision reads thus;

“11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus:

(I) An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

(II) Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of

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