Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1644 (MAD)

M. Manoharan v. T. Munusamy

2014-06-23

S.RAJENDRAN, S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. The above contempt appeal has been filed by the appellant u/S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Cont. P. No. 724/2013 dated 31.10.2013. At the time of numbering this petition, the Registry raised a question on maintainability of the petition and returned the papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner with an endorsement which is as follows:-- "How the contempt appeal SR. 110103/2013 is maintainable as there is no order of punishment." While complying with the returns, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented by endorsing the following: "Appeal lies u/S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act." However, section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court to punish for contempt whereas, the contempt petition was closed by the learned single Judge with an order that no contempt was made out. Further, the learned single Judge had left it open to the respondents to complete the formalities with regard to the promotion and placement above the Juniors. But, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted that contempt appeal should be numbered and brought it for admissions. 2. By order, this petition has been posted before this Court for maintainability. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the arguments advanced by him regarding maintainability. We have also gone through the documents made available on record including the order passed by this Court in Cont. P. No. 724/2013 dated 31.10.2013 and the provisions of law. 4. This appeal has been filed against the final order passed by the learned single Judge in Cont. P. No. 724/2013 dated 31.10.2013. A reading of the said order would show that the learned Judge has closed the contempt petition leaving the matter open to the respondents to complete the formalities with regard to the promotion and placement of the appellant above the juniors. More so, no punishment was imposed on the contemnors by the learned single Judge warranting the appellant to file an contempt appeal u/S. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. If any punishment is imposed, then it is for the contemnors to prefer any appeal as against the such punishment imposed. More so, no punishment was imposed on the contemnors by the learned single Judge warranting the appellant to file an contempt appeal u/S. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. If any punishment is imposed, then it is for the contemnors to prefer any appeal as against the such punishment imposed. The contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be raised in a contempt appeal. If at all the appellant is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the remedy lies before an appropriate Forum and not by way of filing contempt appeal before the High Court. Secondly, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order which is going to be passed by the respondents/contemnors, pursuant to the closure of the contempt petition, it is open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law and in any manner no appeal is maintainable before this Court. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1988 [3] SCC 26 has held that: "... It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under section 19(1) of the Act. It is contended by him that as no punishment was imposed on the respondent by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, section 19(1) is inapplicable and the appeal is incompetent. Section 19(1) provides as follows: "19(1). An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court. Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court." 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, an appeal will he 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." 6. In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are rejected, upholding the objection raised by the Registry by recording the contempt appeal is not I maintainable both in law and on fact. Since the contempt appeal is not entertained at the pre-numbering stage, the Registry is directed to return the original papers to the learned counsel for the appellant after getting due acknowledgment from him. Appeal dismissed.