Judicial Propriety | A Judge Cannot Review or Overturn a Contempt Finding by a Coordinate Bench: Supreme Court - 2025-07-06

Judge Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Coordinate Bench's Contempt Finding: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, led by Justice B.R.Gavai , has set aside a Delhi High Court order, ruling that a judge cannot review or overturn a contempt finding made by another judge of the same court. The Court emphasized that such an action is an excess of jurisdiction and a violation of judicial propriety.

---

Case Background

The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the transfer of shareholding in a company, "RBT Private Ltd." The appellants, Rajan Chadha and Rajiv Chadha , alleged that the respondent, Sanjay Arora , who was set to take over the company, had breached his obligations. They claimed he was siphoning off company assets and defaulting on loan EMIs, for which the appellants' personal property was collateral.

The matter was referred to arbitration. An interim order by the arbitrator on July 1, 2020, directed the respondent to pay the loan EMIs. The appellants alleged non-compliance and filed a contempt petition before the Delhi High Court, citing violation of the arbitrator's order and an earlier High Court order dated June 11, 2020, which had recorded the respondent's undertakings.

On December 5, 2023, a Single Judge of the High Court found the respondent "guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating" the court orders and held him in contempt. The judge granted the respondent four weeks to "purge the contempt," failing which he was to submit an affidavit on the quantum of punishment.

However, following a change in roster, the case was heard by a different Single Judge. This judge, in an order dated July 3, 2024, revisited the entire matter and concluded there was no "wilful and deliberate disobedience," thereby dismissing the contempt petition and discharging the respondent. This dismissal prompted the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

• Appellants' Counsel (Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.): Argued that the second High Court judge had effectively acted as an appellate authority over the decision of a coordinate bench. Once the first judge had already found the respondent guilty, the subsequent hearing was limited to considering whether the contempt was purged or what punishment should be imposed.

• Respondent's Counsel (Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv.): Defended the High Court's final order, submitting that the judge had passed a well-reasoned order after considering the respondent's affidavit and subsequent developments. He argued that the judge correctly applied Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in dismissing the petition.

Supreme Court's Analysis of Judicial Propriety

The Supreme Court, clarifying that it was not delving into the merits of the contempt allegation, focused entirely on the procedural correctness and judicial discipline.

Justice Gavai , writing for the bench, pointed out that the first High Court judge had already passed a conclusive order holding the respondent guilty. The judgment highlighted a key excerpt from that order: > "For the said reasons, I am of the view that respondent No. 1 is guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders... and thus, has committed contempt of the orders of the Court."

The Supreme Court observed that the matter was only postponed to allow the respondent to either remedy his actions or face sentencing. The role of the next judge was therefore limited to this consequential step.

The Court found that the second judge's act of re-evaluating the merits and finding the respondent not guilty was impermissible. > "It was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not... the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that the Respondent had not committed contempt amounts to sitting in an appeal over the order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 5th December 2023."

The Court stated that if the respondent was aggrieved by the initial finding of guilt, his only legal recourse was to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the second judge's actions were not only an "excess of jurisdiction" but also "contrary to the well-settled principles of judicial propriety."

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned High Court judgment dated July 3, 2024. The matter has been remitted back to the Delhi High Court with a directive to proceed from the stage of the December 5, 2023 order, which had already established the respondent's guilt.