Petitioner filed a contempt petition before a Single Judge for alleged disobedience of an order later modified by a Division Bench. The Court applied the doctrine of merger to hold the Single Judge’s order absorbed, rendering the petition non-maintainable there; it must be moved against the Division Bench instead.
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.
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 31.08.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary AIBOA House II Floor No. 109 Angappan Naicken Street Chennai - 600 001.
…. Petitioner
-Vs-
Brajeshwar Sharma The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India No.239 Vidhan Bhawan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 021.
.... Respondent
Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberately and willfully disobeying the final order of this Hon`ble Court dated 06.02.2020 in W.P.No.820 of 2020.
This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the respondent has
deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.820 of 2020 dated 06.02.2020.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sathish
Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
1 / 5
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
3.The counsel appearing on either side raised various contentions touching
upon the purport of the order passed by this Court and which was subsequently modified by the Division Bench while passing final orders in W.A.No.252 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020.
4.In the considered view of this Court, this Court need not venture into rendering its findings on the contentions raised on either side since the very maintainability of the Contempt Petition is in question.
5.After the final orders were passed in the writ petition on 06.02.2020, the respondent took the matter on appeal in W.A.No.252 of 2020 and the Division Bench dealt with the case on merits and partly allowed the Writ Appeal. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder.
“17. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the peculiar circumstances which exist in this year namely, the merger of banks and the consequent fitment of officers from the banks which will be merging including the appellant bank. It would be impossible to conduct a fresh examination for these officers before 31.03.2020 which might have an effect of breaking down the entire merger process.
2 / 5
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
learned Single Judge, but we however modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that such of the members of the petitioner's association who are entitled and who according to the bank belong to the specialist category and have been deprived of the chance to take examination may be permitted to take the examination and be considered for appointment for the vacancies arising on 01.04.2020 treating them to be eligible for promotion. The bank shall ensure that the order of the Court is complied with in letter and spirit without any further delay so as not to cause any disadvantage to the petitioner as against their counterparts. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. No Costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4228 of 2020 is closed.”
by the Single Judge is modified and the Writ Appeal is partly allowed, the order of
the Single Judge merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an
order of confirmation.
( a) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala , (2000) 6 SCC 359 page
370 12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subjectmatter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though
the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and
3 / 5
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way — whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below.
(b) Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan , (2019) 11 SCC 419
7.The aforementioned question raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is no more res integra, inasmuch as the very question is decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad [Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724] , wherein it was observed that in terms of Article 136, Limitation Act, 1963, a decree can be executed when it becomes enforceable. A decree is defined in Section 2(2) CPC, 1908 to mean the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. A decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC would be enforceable irrespective of whether it is passed by the trial court, the first appellate court or the second appellate court. When an appeal is prescribed under a statute and the appellate forum is invoked and entertained, for all intents and purposes, the suit continues. When a higher forum entertains an appeal and passes an order on merit, the doctrine of merger would apply. The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of the propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation passed by the appellate authority. The said doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one operative decree
4 / 5
Contempt Petition No.570 of 2020
governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time.
giving such liberty, no further orders can be passed by this Court.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
kst
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
SMI/25.09.2020
5 / 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition filed before a Single Judge is maintainable when the impugned order has been merged with a subsequent order of a Division Bench by the doctrine of merger.
Does the doctrine of merger apply to preserve the finality of a single judge’s order once an appeal is disposed of on merits?
What is the appropriate forum for filing a contempt petition when the challenged order has merged with an appellate order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunhayammed v. State of KeralaReferred¶34
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala , (2000) 6 SCC 359 page 370 · Who else cites this
Shanthi v. T.D. VishwanathanReferred¶40
Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan , (2019) 11 SCC 419 · Who else cites this
Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish PrasadReferred¶41
Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary
Brajeshwar Sharma The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India
N. Antoni Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
