Dismissed

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. Dalchand Nagda and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2014SAW/447/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against an order rejecting a contempt petition without punishing the contemnor. The bench held no appeal lies where the High Court does not exercise jurisdiction to punish.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner against the impugned order dismissing the contempt petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Mangi Lal and Ors. Vs Dalchand Nagda and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.447/2013 In SB Civil Contempt Petition No.31/2003

¶3

Mangilal & Ors. v. Dalchand Nagda Anr.

¶4

Date of Judgment :: 4^th July, 2014

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN

¶6

Mr. Narendra Thanvi, for the appellant-petitioner.

¶7

This is an appeal filed by the appellantpetitioner as per Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1971”) against the order passed by learned Single Judge in SBCivil Contempt Petition No.31/2003. By the order impugned learned Single Judge dismissed the contempt petition preferred by the appellant alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 8.10.2012 passed in SBCivil Writ Petition No.10294/2012.

¶8

We are of the considered opinion that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 can be maintained only against an order where the Court exercises its jurisdiction to punish a contemnor and not otherwise. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of D.N.Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1988)3 SCC 26, took the same view by arriving at the conclusion that the legislature has not conferred any right of appeal on the person alleging contempt. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.N.Taneja (supra) read as under:-

¶9

-2-

¶10

“4. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for contempt against the respondent, Bhajan Lal, in the High Court complaining of interference by the respondent with the due course of judicial proceedings. The application was admitted and a rule nisi was issued upon the respondent. The respondent appeared in the rule and opposed the same by filing an affidavit denying all the allegations made against him by the appellant.

¶11

The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after considering the application, affidavits and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, took the view that there were circumstances to indicate that it was not a fit case in which the court should exercise its jurisdiction under the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed the application and discharged the rule nisi.

¶12

The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. In other words, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. As has been noticed earlier,

¶13

-3-

¶14

an appeal will lie under section 19(1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and, in our opinion rightly, that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution.

¶15

There can be no doubt that whenever a court, tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter, such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or against a person. For example, a civil court is conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a suit; the civil court will have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same. But when a court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in a particular manner, the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other. Article 215 confers jurisdiction or power on the High Court to punish for contempt. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for contempt. It is true that in considering a question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or not, the court hears the parties and considers the materials

¶16

-4-

¶17

produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and, thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for contempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular manner, that is to say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is imposed by the High Court, the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution.

¶18

It does not, however, mean that when the High Court erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of the court will not be without any remedy. Even though no appeal is maintainable under section 19(1) of the Act, the petitioner in such a case can move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention, as advanced on behalf of the appellant, that there would be no remedy against the erroneous or perverse decision of the High Court in not exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, is not correct. But, in such a case there would be no right of appeal under section 19(1), as there is no exercise of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for contempt. The view which we take finds support from a decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra.

¶19

Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a

¶20

-5-

¶21

right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. In this connection, it may be noticed that there was no right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. It is for the first time that under section 19(1) of the Act, a right of appeal has been provided for. A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such information he may still assist the court, but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the court and the contemnor. It may be one of the reasons which weighed with the Legislature in not conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt. The aggrieved party under section 19(1) can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court.”

¶22

In the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, reported in (1975)3 SCC 535, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 where there is no decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It was held by the Apex Court that exercise of contempt jurisdiction being a matter entirely between the Court and the alleged contemnor, the Court may in its discretion, decline to exercise its jurisdiction for contempt. Where the Court rejects a motion or a reference and declines to

¶23

-6-

¶24

initiate the proceedings for contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

¶25

The law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of D.N.Taneja (supra) and Baradakanta Mishra (supra) are applicable in the instant case too, thus, we are having no hesitation in dismissing this appeal being not maintainable.

¶26

Dismissed accordingly.

¶27

(ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶28

kkm/ps

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. Dalchand Nagda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangi Lal and Ors. v. Dalchand Nagda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darga Ram @ Gunga Vs State of Raj.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of Raj.

Mohan Vs State of Raj.

Smt. Kamla Bai Vs Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.,andOR

Kishan Vs State of Raj.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Raj.