Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1045
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ
M/S MDDA RAMKY ISBT LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
OMBIR SINGH TOMAR – Respondent
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No(s). 1624 OF 2017 in SLP(C) No. 29876/2016
Contempt proceedings are not warranted if the alleged contemnor has not intentionally violated the court's order, and ongoing execution of claims may preclude contempt.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Allegations of violation of Order dated 17th April, 2017 regarding payment of licence fees and maintenance charges. - The Court found that the respondent had not intentionally violated the prior order and noted ongoing execution proceedings. (Paras 1, 8)
(B) Contempt Proceedings - The Court highlighted that contempt is between the Court and the alleged contemnor and decided not to pursue the proceedings in light of the circumstances. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The contempt petition was filed due to the alleged non-payment of licence fees and common area maintenance charges by the respondent. A series of orders were issued, including bailable and non-bailable warrants against the respondent, who was eventually arrested.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that there was no wilful violation of its order by the respondent and therefore decided to dismiss the contempt proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent intentionally violated the court's order regarding payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that contempt proceedings should not proceed if it is determined the respondent has not acted willfully in violation of court orders.
Result: Contempt proceedings are dropped and the contempt petition is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt petition details and procedural history (Para 1) |
BANUMATHI, J.:
(1) This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of Order dated 17th April, 2017 passed in I.A. NO.2 of 2016 in SLP(C)No.29876 of 2016, which reads as under:
“I.A.No.2 of 2016 This application has been filed with the following prayer:-
“(A) To pass an order for directing the respondent to pay the admitted licence fee and common area Maintenance charges of the premises from August, 2012 till date.
The prayer, as above is allowed.
The deposit in terms of the prayer shall be made within one month from today.
I.A.No.2 of 2016 is, accordingly, allowed.”
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.01.10 Reason:
dismissed on 29th August, 2017. It was thereafter I.A. No.2 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to pay the admitted licence fee and common area maintenance charges of the premises from August, 2012 till the date of filing of the application, which came be allowed on 17th April, 2017. As pointed out earlier, alleging violation of Order dated 17th April, 2017 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2016, the present contempt petition has been filed.
(3) Thereafter, number of orders came to be passed in the contempt petition by this Court and pursuant to Order dated 11th May, 2018, bailable warrants were issued against the respondent.
(4) Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice, by order dated 3rd August, 2018, non-bailable warrants were issued by this Court against the respondent through the jurisdictional police station.
(5) By order dated 4th September, 2018, the Magistrate of the competent jurisdiction was directed to initiate contempt proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. immediately and Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, was also directed to take further steps to see that the respondent was arrested and
(6) Respondent was arrested and sent to custody on 25th
September, 2018 and thereafter number of orders came to be
(7) The petitioner has already filed execution petition before the competent court to execute the final award passed by the Arbitrator. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy – viz., execution of the final award before the executing court in accordance with law. When regular execution petition is pending, it cannot be said that the respondent has intentionally violated the order dated 17th April, 2017.
(8) In the above facts and circumstances of the present case we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt proceedings against the respondent. Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor who is alleged to have violated the orders of this Court. The contempt proceedings are dropped and the contempt petition is closed.
(9) The respondent is ordered to be released forthwith.
(10) All the pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(R. BANUMATHI)
