IMPORTANT POINTS
1. An order refusing prayer for discharge of rule issued in contempt of Court proceedings while accepting unconditional apology is an order or decision in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and therefore such an order is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court s dignity and majesty of law.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 2(b)-Civil Contempt-Decree in suit under Estate Acquisition Act awarding compensation-State filing appeal alleging claimants had obtained decree by fraud-High Court ordering ad hoc payment-State coming to know that claimant had no title or interest in land State filing application for vacation of order of payment-Claimants filing contempt alleging State non compliance with order of High Court-High Court initiating contempt proceedings-Court accepting unqualified apology and ordering deposit of award amount-High Court not correct in its action-Contempt proceeding cannot be used for executing decree or implementation of order-Claim disputed on ground of fraud-No wilful disobedience of order of Court-High Court s order quashed.
       Weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court s dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. (Para 7)
       It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First Appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court as no stay order is granted by the Hight Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified. (Para 7)
       Further, the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree is passed the State is in the position of a judgment debtor and hence the court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally provded steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the court should be slow to haul up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of such money decree. (Para 8)
       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 19-Appeal-Maintainability-High Court accepting unqualified apology but rejecting prayer for discharge of rule-Appeal thereagainst to Supreme Court-Order passed not discharging rule issued in contempt proceedings, would be an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-Appeal maintainable-Acceptance of unconditional apology warrants dropping of further proceedings and discharge of Rule.
       Held : The argument that after issuance of notice for contempt proceedings initiated by the respondents, the Court has only issued Rule and the matter is not finally decided, therefore, the appeal against such order is not maintainable cannot be accepted because after receipt of the notice, concerned officers tendered unconditional apology and after accepting the same, the High Court rejected the prayer for discharge of the Rule issued for contempt action. When the Court either suo moto or on a motion or a reference, decides to take action and initiate proceedings for contempt, it assumes jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding for contempt and if the order is passed not discharging the Rule issued in contempt proceedings, it would be an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Against such order, appeal would be maintainable. (Paras 9 & 10)
       In any case, the unconditional apology tendered could have been accepted and further proceedings dropped and Rule ought to have been discharged. (Para 12)

Judgement Key Points

The document emphasizes that contempt proceedings are not meant to be used in cases of mere disobedience or disputes over the correctness of an order. It highlights that a party's wilful disobedience involves a deliberate and intentional act of non-compliance. Furthermore, the document suggests that if a party has not willfully disobeyed an order but instead was unaware of it or could have easily learned about it, the contempt action may not be justified. Specifically, it indicates that in situations where a party could have acquainted itself with the order through proper diligence, the disobedience may not be considered wilful. Therefore, the document holds that wilful disobedience does not always require direct service of the order if the party could have known about it through reasonable means.

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Delay condoned.

2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 4th August,1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.No.628 of 1998 and C.P.A.N. No. 1822 of 1997 in F.A.No. 232 of 1988. By the impugned order, the Court accepted unqualified apology tendered by the appellants in compliance with the orders of the Court for not paying the balance award money due to the respondents. The Court further directed the appellants to deposit with the Registrar (Appellate Side) the compensation money determined in terms of order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of the lands acquired by the State as mentioned in the order and decree within two weeks from the date of the order without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in such proceedings. Further, the Court did not pass any order on the application filed by the Collector for vacating the Rule issued in the contempt proceeding holding that Collector cannot go behind the Award passed by him as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.

3. It is the contention of the appellant that the land in question has vested in the State Government under the Estates Acquisition Act,1953 and the intermediaries were paid compensation under the said enactment. It is also contended that respondents-claimants have obtained a decree by fraud in their favour after the said Act, therefore, it is nullity as the land vested in the State Government. Further, by mistake, the Collector made an order under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 39.02 acres of land @ Rs. 27,126/- per acre. That compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,23,500/- per acre. The State of West Bengal filed appeal (First Appeal No. 232 of 1988) against the said Judgment and Decree. In the said appeal, an application for stay was also filed on which the High Court made an order directing that payment @ Rs. 600/- per cottah be made as an interim relief. The claimants filed an application before the Appellate Court for a direction that compensation amount be paid. However, the Appellate Court directed an ad hoc payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. That amount was paid. Further, on 15th May 1992, thw High Court passed an interim order which reads as under:

"Accordingly, the appellant should pay at this stage to the respondent/claimant a sum equivalent to 3/4th of the rate admitted by the appellant, i.e. 3/4th of Rs. 800/- per cottah including the benefits awarded by the learned L.A. Judge within two months from today."

4. Thereafter, it came to light that claimants have no right, title or interest in the land and, therefore, no compensation was payable to them. In these circumstances, the State of West Bengal moved an application for vacation of the order for the payment. Thereafter, the claimants filed an application stating that the officers of the State of West Bengal were in contempt for not having complied with the order of the High Court.

5. It is also pointed out that against the order of the High Court directing that 2/3rd of the compensation be paid to the claimants, the State approached this Court by filing a petition but the same was withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for suitable orders. Subsequently, claimants filed an application before this Court seeking clarification of order dated 9.9.1992. This Court vide order dated 23.8.1993 clarified its order by stating that order dated 9.9.1992 does not, in any way, come in the way of claimants getting the admitted compensation. Subsequently, the High Court passed an order that application for vacating interim order would be heard on the date fixed for hearing of the contempt rule.

6. In the background of these facts, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that First Appeal No. 232 of 1988 is pending before the Court and that there is no specific order staying the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge. Therefore, instead of filing contempt application, the claimants could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 815

Cases Referred (1)