IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 21.11.2025

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

Uploaded on: 19.12.2025

M/S MONARCH TAPES LTD

..Petitioner

Versus

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.

OF HRY, INDUSTRIES & COMM., HRY & ORS

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate

with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate

Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (in short ‘1971 Act’) for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 28.01.2011 passed by

this Court in CWP-18018-2005.

2. A perusal of the same shows that the present contempt petition

is filed after a period of 13 years.

3. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 20 of 1971 Act, which

is reproduced as under:-

“20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its

own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

4. As per the requirement of the above referred to provision of 1971 Act, wherein, limitation is provided, the contempt can be filed within a period of one year and in the present case, the same has been filed after a delay of almost 13 years.

5. It is trite law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and others, 2024 INSC 544, that Court must adhere to limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the 1971 Act and once contempt petition was found to be barred by limitation, sufficient cause for delay must be shown by the petitioner.

6. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“28. Having held that the review jurisdiction was not available to be exercised by the Division Bench (review), reversal of the impugned order is the solitary conceivable outcome. However, the importance of the second legal issue cannot be over-emphasized. The purpose of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. We have found the law on the question of applicability of the principle of "continuous wrong/breach/offence" for the purpose of section 20 of the Act not too certain; hence, we feel it expedient to give a brief overview of the law of contempt and how such law has evolved and developed as well as chart out the course of action to be followed by the high courts while exercising contempt jurisdiction not only generally but also on the face of an objection as to maintainability of a time-barred action initiated by a party for civil contempt.

29. The power of the Supreme Court and a high court to punish for breach of its orders is expressly recognised by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively. It is an inherent power, distinguishable from a power derived from a statute. In R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 1 SCC 651, this Court pointed out that the inherent power or jurisdiction was neither derived from the statutory law relating to contempt nor did such statutory law affect such inherent power or confer a new power or jurisdiction. In view of the recognition of such power by the Constitution itself, they partake the character of constitutional power and consequentially no law made by legislature could take away the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court and the high courts.

30. In Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union (1970) 3 SCC 98, this Court observed as follows:

"5. *** Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's order serves a dual purpose: (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. The sentence imposed should effectuate both these purposes.

31. This Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath