Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 39 (GAU)

J. Suresh Babu v. Chingsubam Rajeshwor Singh

2013-01-18

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.11.2012 passed in Cont. Case(C) No. 135 of 2010 wherein and whereunder, the learned single Judge had made some directions in the said contempt case. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 07.11.2012 read as follows:- The contemnor cannot take a vague plea after lapse of almost 5(five) years they are intending to go for an appeal so they will not comply the Courts order. From the order dated 6.9.2011, the contemnor has submitted that the matter is under consideration for immediate compliance and now after almost lapse of 1 (one) year they are coming with a different stand just to bye pass the Courts order dated 28.2.2007 which is nothing but a kind of playing tactice of the contemnor which is highly disgusting and disgraceful. And this court warns the respondent/contemnor specially respondent No. 5 to be cautious not to play with the Court order and directs to comply the Courts order dated 28.2.2007 passed in W.P(C) No. 696/2006 within 2(two) weeks, failing which this Court will be bound to impose heavy penalty. 2. We have perused the impugned order:- It appears that the contempt case is not finally disposed of and the same is still pending. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the learned single Judge had not imposed any penalty or punishment to the alleged contemnor, i.e. the present appellant. Against which type of order the appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 had already been decided by this Court (Division Bench) in a number of cases, one of which is the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. Imphal & another v. Shri Aribam Kanhai Sharma & other (Division Bench) reported in (1994) 1 GLR 55. Para Nos. 2, 3 and 7 the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal & another (supra) read as follows:- 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. of Manipur. Imphal & another v. Shri Aribam Kanhai Sharma & other (Division Bench) reported in (1994) 1 GLR 55. Para Nos. 2, 3 and 7 the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal & another (supra) read as follows:- 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. Thus respondents made an application (Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 91/92) for initiating contempt proceeding against the appellants alleging that the appellants had willfully disobeyed the order made on 21.02.92 by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 608 of 1990, that is to say, the respondents moved the Court and drew its attention to the contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellants. Learned single Judge had held that there was no willful disobedience of the order of this Court and closed the case. However, the learned single Judge directed the appellants to carry out the direction of the Court as is stated in the order. 3. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that no punishment was imposed on the appellants by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 7. The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that, if the Court does not punish the alleged contemner, no appeal shall lie under section 19(1) of the Act from any decision or order made in contempt proceeding. As already stated, learned single Judge did not punish the contemners. Therefore, no appeal shall lie from the impugned order. Further in a catena of cases, the Apex Court observed that no appeal lies against the order of the learned single Judge making some observations and directions in the contempt proceedings. The learned single Judge did not finally dispose of the said contempt case. It is the decision of this High Court in a number of cases that appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lies against the judgment and order punishing the condemner in a contempt proceeding. 3. In the present case, the contemnor was not punished by the learned single Judge, therefore no appeal lies against the order of the learned single Judge. 3. In the present case, the contemnor was not punished by the learned single Judge, therefore no appeal lies against the order of the learned single Judge. The Apex Court in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 326 held that the right of appeals under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is available only when the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 215 imposes punishment on the contemnors. Para Nos. 12 and 13 of the D.N. Taneja (supra) read as follows:- 12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statue 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. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, there is substance in the preliminary objection raised as to the maintainability of the appeal. In our view the appeal is incompetent and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy (1996) 4 SCC 411 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2131 ) held that:- On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy (1996) 4 SCC 411 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2131 ) held that:- On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The words 'any order' have to be read with the expression 'decision' used in the said sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 'Any order' is not independent of the expression 'decision'. They have been put in an alternative form saying 'order' or 'decision'. In either case, it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt. If the expression 'any order' is read independently of the 'decision' then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of Section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for Contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result. The Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op., Bank Ltd. & other v. Chunali Nanda & other, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399: ( AIR 2006 SC 2190 ) held that only the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of the High Court for punishing the contemnors is maintainable. For the sake of repetition, we reiterated that the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.11.2012 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 135 of 2010 is not an order for punishing of the appellant (respondent). Para No. 11 of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop., Bank Ltd. & other v. Chunali Nanda & other, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 reads as follows:- 11. Para No. 11 of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop., Bank Ltd. & other v. Chunali Nanda & other, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 reads as follows:- 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against the orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized 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. 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 CC 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 or 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, therefore, 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 CC Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has referred the decision of this Court in Dakhin Behara Fishery Co-op. Society Ltd. v. State of Assam & other, 2001 (1) GLT 654. However, after the decision of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op., Bank Ltd. & other, AIR 2006 SC 2190 ) (supra), the ratio laid down in the case of Dakhin Behara Fishery Co-op. Society Ltd. is no longer a good law. The present appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. Appeal dismissed.