The High Court exceeded its contempt jurisdiction by vacating a stay order without proper proceedings, despite finding civil contempt for violation of status quo.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Scope and extent of contempt jurisdiction - High Court vacated stay order instead of initiating contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of a stay order - The contemnor challenged the High Court's action, arguing it exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 10, 17)

(B) Contempt of Court - Civil contempt defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Violation of status quo condition in stay order amounted to civil contempt, warranting appropriate consequences. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The Trust filed a suit for possession against the Society, which was ordered to maintain status quo during the appeal. The Society violated this by letting out the premises for exhibitions, leading to contempt proceedings. (Paras 5, 9)

Findings of Court:
The High Court's action to vacate the stay order was beyond its contempt jurisdiction and cannot be sustained; the matter is remanded for proper contempt proceedings. (Paras 17, 19)

Issues: Whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in vacating the stay order instead of initiating contempt proceedings for violation of the order. (Paras 11, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by vacating the stay order without proper contempt proceedings, despite finding the contemnor guilty of civil contempt. (Paras 16, 17)

Result: Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J 1. Leave granted.

2. Focus in this appeal is on the scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .

3. By judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in C.P.A.N. 2113 of 2013 in F.A. No. 229 of 2010, a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta held that the act of the contemnor therein was in willful disobedience to the stay order passed in the first appeal and was not only contemptuous but also illegal and invalid. However, instead of initiating proceedings for contempt, Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2024.01.30 17:34:11 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified the Division Bench opined that justice would be subserved by vacating the stay order passed in the first appeal. Aggrieved by this turn of events, the contemnor is before this Court.

4. By order dated 27.01.2015, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court at Calcutta.

5. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust, Kolkata (for brevity, ‘the Trust’), was the plaintiff in T. Suit No. 164 of 2004, filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for damages, before the learned 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore. This suit was instituted by it against Baitanik, a registered society (for brevity, ‘the Society’), which was in occupation of the premises, detailed in suit schedules A and B, situated at 4B, Elgin Road (now, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani), Bhawanipore, Kolkata. The Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 25.02.2009 and directed delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust within 30 days. Execution proceedings were initiated by the Trust on 30.07.2009. 6. While so, the Society preferred an appeal in F.A.T. No. 321 of 2009 against the judgment dated 25.02.2009, which was thereafter renumbered as F.A. No. 229 of 2009, before the High Court at Calcutta. Therein, an interim order was passed on 03.03.2010 in CAN 7021 of 2009 (application for stay) in the following terms: -

“……. We, therefore, dispose of the application for stay with the following directions: -

1) There shall be an unconditional order of stay of all further proceedings in title execution case pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Alipore, for a period of eight weeks.

2) The appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac only) with the learned Registrar General of this Court by eight weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal.

3) The appellant must go on depositing current occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) only per month for the suit premises during the pendency of the appeal with the learned Registrar General of this Court. First of such deposit for the month of March, 2010 is to be made by April 16, 2010. All subsequent deposits are to be made by fifteenth of each succeeding month for which the same is due and payable.

4) All these deposits are to be made by the defendant no.

1-appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal.

5) If the defendant no.1-appellant deposits Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac ), only and goes on paying the monthly occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) only, the interim order of stay shall continue till the disposal of the appeal.

6) The learned Registrar General is requested to invest the amounts that may be deposited by the appellant in; short term renewable interest bearing fixed deposits scheme with any nationalized bank of his choice. He is, further, requested to see that such fixed deposits are renewed from time to time during the pendency of this appeal subject, however, to any order that may be passed in this appeal.

7) In default of the deposits, as afor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document