The court considered the maintainability of an appeal against a direction in contempt proceedings relating to party dispute merits, relying on SC precedent, and finally dropped the petition and disposed of the appeal.
Contempt petition dropped; appeal disposed of; respondent reinstated at headquarters; sum of Rs. 33 lacs withdrawn by respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
if
Language: he has been posted in the Engineering Domain; further the Mangalore Project has since culminated. His contention is that this posting order is issued to overreach the order of the Court; it is malafide for the reason that the petitioner was litigating with the respondent. Contentions have been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. He states that Manglore Project is yet in progress and in fact there are no posts for interpreter/translator of the French Language in Manglore; nevertheless to implement and honour the order of this Court the petitioner has been given a posting order at Manglore. Respondent will on affidavit place on record the projects which have been undertaken by him as also as to till when Manglore project is in progress, also the duties which are to be assigned to the petitioner in this project.. The said affidavit be filed in two weeks with advance copy to the petitioner.
CM No. 13000/2011 (for direction)
Counsel for the respondent accepts Notice. Out of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- which had already been deposited by the respondent in this Court a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/be released to the petitioner. This will be subject to the outcome of final settlement of account between the j parties."
petition which she could not have done and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. He has commended us to the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Limited and Others versus Chuniiai Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399. Learned senior counsel has invited our attention to paragraph 11 of the decision. It reads as follows:
"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus:
I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
_J
A
II. Neither an 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 the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CO Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefpre, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
J
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).
The first point is answered accordingly."
appeal is maintainable.
^ \ I
In view of the aforesaid, the contempt proceeding is
dropped.
CHIEF JUSTICE
-i(^ SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 19, 2011 VKR /
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable against a direction in contempt proceedings relating to the merits of the dispute between parties.
Whether the contempt petition survives given the direction to reinstate the respondent and stop the proceedings.
Whether the present appeal is maintainable for relief to the appellant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Limited and Others versus Chuniiai Nanda and OthersFollowed¶7
(2006) 5 SCC 399 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
Respondent
SANJIV KHANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
