A contempt petition for non-compliance with an MM order under Section 23 DV Act was dismissed without prejudice; the court held contempt should be exercised sparingly and directed petitioner to seek enforcement from the learned MM first.
Petition dismissed without prejudice; petitioner at liberty to approach the learned MM for enforcement of its order.
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.
$~97
versus
SHASHANK THAKUR .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J.(ORAL)
CM APPL. 47424/2024 (Ex.)
CONT.CAS(C) 1293/2024
Signature Not Verified
CONT CAS (C) 1293/2024 Page 1 of 4
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 15:37:04
Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [“ DV Act ”],to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,98,011.80 paisa into the petitioner’s the bank account within a week, thereof so as to enable the complainant/petitioner to repay the gold loan amount before the maturity date.
1 MANU/SC/0840/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODCONT CAS (C) 1293/2024 Page 2 of 4 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 15:37:04
Narang2 , wherein it was held that merely because an order or decree of Court is executable, the same would not take away the Court’s jurisdiction in contempt proceedings. However, in the same case it was also held that much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case or the contextual background in which the Court may or may not decide to exercise contempt jurisdiction. It was reiterated that normally, the parties should resort for execution of the decree or implementation of an order, which is the effective alternate remedy in law.
“7......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 Courts dignity and majesty of law. ...”
“8. ...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 nonsatisfaction of the money decree.”
2(2006) 11 SCC 114
3(2000) 4 SCC 400
4 2021 SCC Online SC 1252
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODCONT CAS (C) 1293/2024 Page 3 of 4 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 15:37:04
where the proceedings arose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The Supreme Court observed that since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a comprehensive code in itself and provides a detailed procedure for acquisition of land and payment of compensation based on common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the parties should seek remedies under the same Act, rather than expanding the scope of the directions by filing contempt petitions. 12. Before parting with this cases, insofar as the decision in the case of HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable since the respondent/contemnor in the aforesaid was in deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal, as well as in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and also involving an issue of valuable foreign exchange towards payment of debts impacting public interest.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
AUGUST 20, 2024
Sadiq
Signature Not Verified
CONT CAS (C) 1293/2024 Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:22.08.2024 15:37:04
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition lies for non-compliance with an MM's order under the DV Act when enforcement can first be sought from that court itself.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited v. Pradeep Shantipershad JainDistinguished¶12
MANU/SC/0840/2022
Rama Narang v. Ramesh NarangRelied on
(2006) 11 SCC 114 · Who else cites this
R.N.Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.Relied on¶9
(2000) 4 SCC 400 · Who else cites this
Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Brijesh Mehrotra & OrsRelied on¶11
2021 SCC Online SC 1252 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shalini Thakur
Shashank Thakur
Dharmesh Sharma
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
