Dismissed

The Ahmednagar District Certified Auditors Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Mar 2015CAPL/1/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the appeal as not tenable, holding that Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not apply to orders declining to initiate contempt proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples', the court reasoned that such orders are not subject to appeal under Section 19.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The Ahmednagar District Certified Auditors Association Vs… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

con.apl1.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.1 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.377 OF 2012 IN

¶6

WRIT PETTIION NO.2545 OF 2012

¶7

The Ahmednagar District Certified
Auditors Association,
'Raj Yog', Plot No.42, Shahunagar,
Kedgaon, ahmednagar,
Tq. & Dist-Ahmednagar,
Through its: Secretary,
Shri Dattatraya s/o Vitthalrao Bomble,
Age-38 years, Occu:Certified Auditor,
R/o-Shahunagar, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar,
Tq. & Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

 (Orig. Petitioner)

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through: The Secretary,
 (Shri Anil s/o Uddhavrao Diggikar),
 Animal-Husbandry-Dairy Development
 & Fisheries Department, Extension,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶12

2) The Commissioner,
 (Shri Madhukar s/o Sukhadev Chaudhari),
 Co-operation & Registrar,
 Co-operative Societies,
 Maharashtra State, Central Building,
 Pune-1,

¶13

con.apl1.13

¶14

¶15

3) The Commissioner,
 (Shri Jaywant s/o Yeshwant Gaikwad),
 Dairy Development, Warali Sea Face,
 Mumbai-18,

¶16

4) The Officer on Special Duty,
 (Shri Daudkha s/o Bilawal Shaha Tadwi),
 Co-operative Societies,
 (Animal-Husbandry-Dairy Development
 & Fisheries Department),
 Audit Board, Maharashtra State,
 Warali, Administrative Building,
 3rd Floor, A.G. Khan Road,
 Sea Face, Mumbai-18,

¶17

5) The District Special Auditor,
 (Shri Arun s/o Madhukar Gir),
 (Animal-Husbandry-Dairy Development
 & Fisheries Department)
 Class-II, Ahmednagar,
 Tq. & Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS
 (Orig. Respondents)

¶19

...

¶20

 Mr. R.D. Bhalerao Advocate for Appellant.
 Mr. S.G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondents.
 ...

¶21

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶22

 DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2015

¶23

ORAL ORDER :

¶24

1.The Appellant assails the order passed by

¶25

the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the

¶26

con.apl1.13

¶27

¶28

Contempt Petition No.377 of 2012, filed by the
present Appellant.

¶29

2.Mr. Bhalerao, learned counsel for the

¶30

Appellant states that the present Appeal under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is
perfectly tenable in view of the phraseology
embodied under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act. The Appeal is provided to the Division

¶31

Bench against the order of the learned Single
Judge from any order or decision in the exercise
of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The
learned counsel submits that wider interpretation
has to be given to the said provision and the
interpretation cannot be confined to the narrow

¶32

limits. Learned counsel submits that said
provision was subject matter of interpretation
before the Division Bench of this Court in Clough

¶33

Engineering Ltd., Australia vs. Oil and Natural

¶34

Gas Corporation, Mumbai, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 553.
Learned counsel submits that on the face of it,

¶35

con.apl1.13

¶36

¶37

Respondents are guilty of disobeying the orders
passed by this Court in as much as this Court has
stayed the circular, still the Respondents
implemented the said circular. After the stay was
granted by Division Bench of this Court staying
effect of the impugned circular, other proceedings
were initiated before Principal Seat at Bombay
where Appellant was not party, wherein Respondents
failed in their duty by not bringing to the notice
of the Division Bench at Principal Seat at Bombay
the order of stay passed by the Division Bench of
this Court at Aurangabad Bench. Respondents are
guilty of willful disobedience of this Court.

¶38

3.Mr. Sangle, learned A.G.P. states that

¶39

there were two orders of Competent Courts in

¶40

force, one passed by the High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad and another by the Principal Seat at
Bombay. If the Respondents would have followed the

¶41

orders of the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad,

¶42

that would have amounted to contempt of orders of

¶43

¶44

con.apl1.13

¶45

Principal Seat at Bombay. The order passed by the
Bombay High Court (Principal Seat), is subsequent
in point of time. According to the learned A.G.P.,
there is no willful or deliberate disobedience of
the order passed by this Court.

¶46

4.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the respective parties. Before we
advert to the contentions canvassed by the
respective parties, it would be appropriate to
refer Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act:

¶47

"19. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie as
of right from any order or decision of High
Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
to punish for contempt-

¶48

(a) where the order or decision is that of
a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than
two Judges of the Court;

¶49

(b) where the order or decision is that of
a Bench, to the Supreme Court:

¶50

Provided that where the order or decision
is that of the Court of the Judicial
Commissioner in any Union territory, such
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

¶51

con.apl1.13

¶52

¶53

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court
may order that-

¶54

(a) the execution of the punishment or
order appealed against be suspended;

¶55

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he
be released on bail; and

¶56

(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding
that the appellant has not purged his
contempt.

¶57

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order
against which an appeal may be filed
satisfies the High Court that he intends to
prefer an appeal, the High Court may also
exercise all or any of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2).

¶58

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall
be filed-

¶59

(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench or
the High Court, within thirty days;

¶60

(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme
Court, within sixty days, from the date of
the order appealed against."

¶61

.Reading the said provision, it lays down

¶62

that where an order or decision is that of a
Single Judge, an appeal can be filed to a Bench of

¶63

not less than two Judges of the Court, however the

¶64

said appeal would lie only against an order or

¶65

¶66

con.apl1.13

¶67

decision of High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The said
terminology was subject matter of interpretation
before the Apex Court in a case of Midnapore

¶68

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others vs. Chunilal

¶69

Nanda and others, (2006) 5 S.C.C. 399. The Apex

¶70

Court, after framing the questions for
consideration, has held that an appeal under
Section 19 is maintainable only against an order
or decision of the High Court passed in exercise

¶71

of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that
is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. It

¶72

is further unequivocally laid down that neither an

¶73

order declining to initiate proceedings for
contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for
contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating

¶74

the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19. In
special circumstances, it may be open to challenge
under Article 136 of the Constitution.

¶75

¶76

con.apl1.13

¶77

5.The Division Bench of this Court in the

¶78

case of Clough Engineering Ltd., referred supra,
relied on the observations of the Apex Court in a
case of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur vs. Om
Prakash Dubey, reported in (2007) 1 S.C.C. 373,
wherein the Apex Court had referred to the
observations in a case of R vs. Serumaga, 2005(2)
All ER, 160, and the Apex Court reproduced the
observations thus:

¶79

"23. Recently in R. v. Serumaga it was
opined:

¶80

"Section 13 of the 1960 Act provides as
follows:

¶81

'(1) Subject to the provisions of this
section, an appeal shall lie under this
section from any order or decision of a
court in the exercise of jurisdiction to
punish for contempt of court (including
criminal contempt); and in relation to any
such order or decision the provisions of
this section shall have effect in
substitution for any other enactment
relating to appeals in civil or criminal
proceedings.

¶82

(2) An appeal under this section shall lie
in any case at the instance of the
defendant and, in the case of an

¶83

con.apl1.13

¶84

¶85

application for committal or attachment, at
the instance of the applicant; and the
appeal shall lie .....(bb) from an order or
decision of the Crown Court to the Court of
Appeal....

¶86

(3) The court to which an appeal is brought
under this section may reverse or vary the
order or decision of the court below; and
make such other order as may be just....'

¶87

We have considered two interpretations of
Section 13(1). The narrow interpretation is
to the effect that it is not triggered
until the contemnor has been convicted of,
and sentenced for, the contempt. The broad
interpretation is that the language 'any
order or decision... in the exercise of
jurisdiction to punish for contempt' is
sufficiently wide to relate also to orders
or decisions made in the course of
proceedings which may result in a
conviction of and sentence for contempt.
But we have come to the conclusion that the
broad interpretation is the correct one.
The statutory language permits it. It
provides a remedy in a case of
unjustifiably prolonged custody, and it
does so without impinging on cases where
the allegation is of an offence other than
contempt of court. Moreover, there are
exceptional features which surround summary
proceedings for contempt which, as the
authorities make clear, demand an enlarged
process of judicial scrutiny.""

¶88

.The Apex Court in the said Judgment,
before reproducing the above observations, has

¶89

con.apl1.13

¶90

¶91

observed that the Judgment of Division Bench is
subject to correction by Apex Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India so also under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Apex
Court in that matter of Municipal Corporation,
Jabalpur was dealing with Division Bench Order of
High Court vide which High Court had issued
directions in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶92

6.In the case of Clough Engineering Ltd.,

¶93

referred supra, the contempt proceeding was
pending and continued against the original
Respondent No.4 and the original Respondent No.1
was directed to disclose names of the officers who
were concerned with sale of goods and material
etc. on 15th October 2007 and further order was
passed that the Court may consider of additionally

¶94

proceeding against the other named officers of
Respondent No.1 company with contempt action, if
it is warranted. It was this order i.e. the

¶95

¶96

con.apl1.13

¶97

directions given during the pendency of the
contempt proceedings against original Respondent
No.1, which was challenged by the original
Respondent No.1 in an appeal before the Division
Bench invoking Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act. It was not the discharge of the two
respondents which was subject matter of challenge
in an appeal before the Division Bench but the
directions given in the said contempt petition
against original Respondent No.1 to disclose the
names of the officers who were concerned with the
sale of goods and the further order that the Court

¶98

may consider of additionally proceeding against
other named officers of Respondent No.1 company
with contempt action, if it is warranted, which
was a subject matter of challenge.

¶99

7.The present case is on altogether
different premise. In the present case, the Court
declined to initiate contempt proceedings itself.

¶100

The proceedings initiated for taking action of

¶101

con.apl1.13

¶102

¶103

contempt have been dismissed. Meaning thereby, the
learned Single Judge declined to initiate contempt
proceedings.

¶104

8.In such a case, Judgment of the Apex

¶105

Court in a case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank

¶106

Ltd., referred supra would squarely apply. In the
case of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, referred

¶107

supra, the facts were different and the provision
of appeal referred, was a different provision. In
the said case the Apex Court was referring to
Section 13 of the Administrative of Justice Act
1960 of England, wherein the phraseology of the
said provision is quite distinct and the same is
not pari materia with Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act. Thus the said Judgment is not
helpful to Appellant.

¶108

9.In light of the above, the present Appeal
is not tenable. As such the Appeal is dismissed.
No costs.

¶109

con.apl1.13

¶110

¶111

10.It is made clear that we have not given

¶112

any findings about the merits of the contentions.

¶113

 [A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
asb/MAR15

The Ahmednagar District Certified Auditors Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ahmednagar District Certified Auditors Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gramin Vikas Mandal Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

Datta Bahuddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

M/S. Sagar Spun Pipes, Aurangabad Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs Terna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Deccan Bottling and Distilling Inds Pvt. Ltd. Thr General Manager Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Pramod Shankarrao Kanade and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.