Dismissed¶41

Savita v. Dr. Sushil Kumar Garg

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – S.12/S.2(b)

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025COCP/2215/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; COCP-2215-2025 (O&M); decided 07.05.2025; Alka Sarin, J.; contempt petition under S.12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against MACT Rewari judicial officer for award relying on overruled FAO-5613-2017 order; judicial award not civil contempt; appeal under Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is the proper remedy (FAO-5694-2023); petition an abuse of process; dismissed with ₹50,000 costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; contempt petition dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two months, failing which recoverable as arrears of land revenue; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶41

Savita Vs Dr. Sushil Kumar Garg — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a contempt petition would lie against a judicial officer, and under which provision of law, for passing an award on the judicial side. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

A petitioner aggrieved by a judicial award has the remedy of filing an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself, which remedy the petitioner had already availed by filing FAO-5694-2023.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

An award passed on the judicial side by a judicial officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has nothing to do with willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, and therefore does not constitute civil contempt.

¶38

Key takeaways

The conduct of the petitioner in filing the present contempt petition is wholly unbecoming and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — S.12/S.2(b) — contempt petition against a judicial officer (Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari) for passing an award dated 22.08.22023 (sic) allegedly in reliance on an overruled order in FAO-5613-2017 — Held: an award rendered on the judicial side under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 involves no willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court and is not civil contempt; the remedy against an award is an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself, already availed by the petitioner (FAO-5694-2023, 'Savita & Ors. V/s Vinay Pal & Anr.', first listed before a Coordinate Bench on 15.03.2024, a fact not disclosed in the contempt petition); filing of the petition held wholly unbecoming and an abuse of the process of law; petition dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two months, default recoverable as arrears of land revenue; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104 COCP-2215-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.05.2025

¶3

SAVITA .... Petitioner

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

Dr. SUSHIL KUMAR GARG .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶7

Present : Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶8

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for punishing the respondent and for initiation of contempt proceedings against him on the ground that the respondent, while presiding over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, had passed an award dated 22.08.22023 (Annexure P-1) relying upon an overruled judgment. It is contended that the Tribunal placed reliance on the order dated 22.05.2018 passed in FAO-5613-2017 which order had subsequently been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶9

Civil contempt has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean ‘willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court’. Further, Section 12 of the Act reads as under :

¶10

AMAN JAIN 2025.05.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶11

104 COCP-2215-2025 (O&M)

¶12

-2-

¶13

“12. Punishment for contempt of court . - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

¶14

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶15

Explanation. - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

¶16

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

¶17

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

¶18

AMAN JAIN 2025.05.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶19

COCP-2215-2025 (O&M)

¶20

104

¶21

-3-

¶22

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

¶23

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

¶24

AMAN JAIN 2025.05.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶25

104 COCP-2215-2025 (O&M)

¶26

-4-

¶27

Explanation. - For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),-

¶28

(a) “company” means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

¶29

(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm”.

¶30

Additionally, Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 reads as under:-

¶31

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of subsection (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was

¶32

a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

¶33

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.’

¶34

AMAN JAIN 2025.05.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶35

104 COCP-2215-2025 (O&M)

¶36

-5-

¶37

On a query put by the Court as to under which provision of law the present contempt petition would lie against a judicial officer for passing an award on the judicial side, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not have the Act and hence is unable to assist the Court.

¶38

It is strange that the petitioner has filed the present petition for contempt when an award had been passed on the judicial side by the judicial officer concerned under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which has nothing to do with the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

¶39

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said judicial award passed in her case, a remedy has been provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself of filing an appeal against the said award, which remedy has already been availed by the petitioner herein by filing an appeal being FAO-5694-2023 titled as ‘Savita & Ors. V/s Vinay Pal & Anr.’. The appeal being FAO-56942023 came up for hearing for the first time before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.03.2024. The said fact of filing an appeal has not even been mentioned in the present contempt petition.

¶40

The conduct of the petitioner in filing the present contempt petition is wholly unbecoming and this Court has no hesitation in holding that this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

¶41

In view of the above, the present contempt petition is dismissed with ₹50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) as costs to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today.

¶42

AMAN JAIN 2025.05.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶43

-6-

¶44

104 COCP-2215-2025 (O&M)

¶45

In case costs are not deposited within a period of two months from today, the

¶46

same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶47