Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar Gupta And Others vs M/S Karnal Motors Pvt Ltd on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M)
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
Reserved on: 11.12.2024
Pronounced on: 16.1.2025
Arun Kumar Gupta and others .....Appellants
Versus
M/s Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Argued by: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated
3.9.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in
COCP No. 3034 of 2024.
Brief facts of the case.
2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) became issued on 24.3.1992, which
became published, which became succeeded by a declaration made on
23.3.1993 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. In pursuance thereto, an
award was made on 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-7). The said notifications
were made for acquiring the land for public purpose i.e. for the
1 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
development and utilization of land as commercial area for Sector-2, Part-
II, Kurukshetra.
3. Being aggrieved from the issuance of said notifications, one
Chander Pal along with other landowners instituted a writ petition before
this Court bearing CWP No. 3859 of 1995 titled as Chander Pal and
others versus State of Haryana and others, before this Court. On the said
petition, this Court on 15.3.1995, had passed the following order:-
“Notice of motion for 10.5.1995.
Dispossession stayed till further orders”
4. In pursuance to the above notifications, award No. 9 was
made on 22.3.1995. Pursuant to the above award, the land in question was
acquired, however the possession thereof could not be taken due to the stay
order (supra) passed by this Court.
5. Subsequently, the writ petition (supra) was referred to the Lok
Adalak, without seeking consent of the State. Vide order dated 12.10.2000
(Annexure P-1), the said writ petition was allowed by the Lok Adalat of
this Court. The order (supra) passed by the Lok Adalt of this Court
becomes extracted hereinafter.
“State counsel has produced a letter dated May 10,1999,
from the Land Acquisition Collector, which is placed on the
record. In this letter recommendations have been made for
excluding the land of the petitioners from acquisition. Only
decision of the Court is invited, so that recommendations
may be implemented. In view of what has been stated above,
the writ petition is allowed with directions to the respondents
to exclude the land of the petitioners-Chander Pal and others
from the acquisition proceedings under the impugned
notifications. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly”
6. Being aggrieved from the order (supra), the State of Haryana
filed an objection petition bearing CM No. 7011 of 2001 in CWP No. 3859
of 1995, which became dismissed vide order dated 20.4.2001.
2 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
7. Thereafter the petitioners in the writ petition (supra) sold the
land in question to the present respondent i.e. M/s Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd.
vide sale deeds dated 9.1.2004 (Annexure P-2). Since, the mutation of the
land in question was already sanctioned in favour of HSVP, therefore the
respondent herein moved various representation to the authority
concerned, seeking rectification in the revenue record in view of the order
dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure P-1). When the respondent company came to
know about the illegal transfer of the land in the name of HSVP, it filed
CWP No. 20452 of 2022 seeking correction of revenue record in view of
the order dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Lok Adalat of this Court. Vide
order dated 9.9.2022 (Annxure P-3), the said petition was disposed by
this Court. The operative part of the order (supra) becomes extracted
hereinafter.
“The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation dated
25.5.2022 (Annexure P-10) by passing a speaking order
withint eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.”
8. Since the order dated 9.9.2022 remained purportedly
uncomplied, thereby the respondent herein preferred COCP No. 678 of
2023, before this Court, with a prayer therein to intiate contempt
proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thus on account of the
appellants herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the order (supra)
passed by this Court. Vide order dated 29.1.2024 (Annexure P-6),
passed by the learned Contempt Court concerned, the contempt petition
(supra) became dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. The
relevant portions of the said order become extracted hereinafter.
3 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -4-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
"x x x x
3. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the
order dated 9.9.2022 passed in CWP-20452-2022 has been
complied with and speaking order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure
R-2) has been passed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has not even disputed the
aforesaid fact.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is rendered
infructuous and dismissed, as such.
6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail
any other alternate remedy, but in accordance with law, if he
feels aggrieved of the order passed byt he responde nt/conerned
authority.”
9. After the dismissal of the said contempt petition, the
respondent company preferred the instant contempt petition bearing
COCP No. 3034 of 2024 before this Court, with a prayer therein to
intiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thus on
account of the appellants herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the
order dated 9.9.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20452 of 2022,
despite the fact that a speaking order dated 19.1.2024 (Annexure P-5)
had already been passed in compliance of the order dated 9.9.2022.
10. The learned Contempt Court concerned, vide order dated
3.9.2024, passed the hereinafter order upon the COCP (supra).
"x x x x
(6) By way of present contempt petition, learned counsel for
the petitioner points out that though in compliance of order
dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No.20452 of
2022, speaking order dated 19.01.2024 stood passed by
respondent No.2, thereby rendering the previous COCP No.678
of 2023 as infructuous, however, the passing of the order dated
19.01.2024 apparently goes against the undertaking/consent
extended before the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court at the
time of decision in CWP No.3859 of 1995. The respondents
have, thus, made themselves liable for the breach of
undertaking extended on 12.10.2000 having interfered in the
course of administration of justice as well.
(7) Notice of motion.
4 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -5-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
(8). On asking of the Court, Mr. Pawan Kumar Longia,
D.A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents
and prays for some time to have instructions.
(9). List on 23.09.2024. ”
11. The order (supra), passed by the learned Single Judge
(Contempt Court) has caused pain to the appellants herein and has led
them to file thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.
12. Resultantly, there was no vestment in the present
respondent to claim any right in term of supra order, unless the speaking
decision made on the representation (supra), thus was successfully
challenged. Since the speaking decision made on the representation
(supra), rather has remained unchallenged, therebys no right became
vested in the present respondent to canvass the remedy of contempt.
Submissions of the learned counsels for the appellants
13. The learned counsels for the appellants have argued before
this Court that the impugned order is proclived towards imposing
punishment upon the contemnors, and, that too, without asking from the
appellants rather a well reasoned explanation qua therebys compliance
theretos thus wanting. Therefore, it is further argued, that since the
appellants did have the supra permissible valid defence rather for
accounting for the delay, if any, in the making of compliance to the
order (supra). However, since the supra valid explanation has not been
well considered. Consequently, it is argued that in a most slipshod and
arbitrary manner, the learned Contempt Court, has proceeded to make
the order (supra), which as stated supra, is proclived towards imposing
punishment, upon the present appellants, besides therebys it intends to,
without making the requisite discernments from the records, rather
5 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -6-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
create a right in the respondent to seek enforcement of the order (supra),
despite the same not being complyable at all. Resultantly, it is argued,
that as such, the instant appeal is maintainable before this Court, and,
that the impugned order dated 3.9.2024, as passed by the learned Single
Judge, be quashed and set aside.
14. In nutshell, the learned counsels for the appellants have
argued, that therebys the instant case is covered within the domain of
principle No. IV of the verdict made by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case
titled as “Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. And others V. Chunilal
Nanda and others” reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399. The said principle is
extracted hereinafter.
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 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 Act, can also
encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
15. In addition, the learned counsels for the appellants have
argued, that the instant case is not covered within the domain of
principle No. V of the judgment (supra), as at the outset, the learned
Contempt Court, did not decide any issue, nor made any direction
relating to the merits of the dispute, wherebys alone the said decision
was open to a challenge in an intra-court appeal, than in an appeal filed
within the domain of principle No. IV.
16. The reason which the learned counsel for the appellants,
6 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -7-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
thus assigns for making the above submission, is grooved in the factum
that, since the pleadings were not complete at the stage of making of the
order (supra). Therefore, only when the pleadings are complete,
whereafters upon making well informed discernments of the pleadings,
thus when subsequently a well informed decision or direction becomes
passed, rather covering the merits of the dispute emerging amongst the
parties, thereupon alone the impugned directions may have been
covered within the ambit of principle No. V, as enclosed in
Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd.‘s case (supra). Consequently, the
learned counsels submit, that the instant case is not covered within the
ambit of principle No. V, as enclosed in the judgment (supra) rendered
by the Apex Court, rather the instant case is covered within the ambit of
principle No. IV of the judgment (supra).
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has most vehemently contended, that the instant contempt
appeal is not maintainable before this Court. In making the said
submission, he refers to the provisions as embodied in Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of
1971’) provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, whereins, it
becomes mandated, that an appeal against an order passed by the
Contempt Bench concerned, is maintainable, but yet only against such
an order or a decision, as becomes made by the Contempt Bench
concerned, wherebys punishment for contempt becomes recorded.
“19. Appeals.–(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any
order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its7 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DBCACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -8-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022jurisdiction “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.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that–
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against
be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail;
and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has
not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an
appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to
prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of
the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed–
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court,
within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty
days, from the date of the order appealed against.”
18. Furthermore, he also argues that since a reading of the
impugned order, displays that no such order, thus becomes passed by the
learned Contempt Court concerned, wherebys but punishment has been
imposed upon the contemnors. Resultantly, he argues that the instant
appeal is not maintainable before this Court.
19. Furthermore, he argues that the supra order is only
challengeable through a motion cast under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, becoming made before the Apex Court, than
through the filing of the instant appeal before this Court.
20. In addition, he also submits that in the proceedings for
8 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -9-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
contempt, the High Court is required to be deciding whether any
contempt of Court is committed and, if so, what should be the
punishment and the matter incidental thereto. He further submits, that
the clear mandamus (supra) as embodied in the order rendered by this
Court on 9.9.2022, did evidently become intentionally disobeyed.
Therefore, he argues that through the making of the impugned operative
part (supra), the learned Contempt Bench concerned, thus has remained
within the frontiers of the jurisdiction conferred upon it, therebys there
is no justification for any interference therewith being made, by this
Court.
Inferences of this Court
21. Before proceeding to determine the validity of the making
of the impugned order, it is necessary to initially extract the apposite
regulatory guidelines, as become underlined in the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in case titled as State of J and K versus Mohd.
Yaqoob Khan and others reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases
167 has held as under:-
6. We do not agree. The scope of a contempt proceeding is
very different from that of the pending main case yet to be
heard and disposed of (in future). Besides, the respondents in a
pending case are at a disadvantage if they are called upon to
meet the merits of the claim in a contempt proceeding at the
risk of being punished. It is, therefore, not right to suggest that
it should be assumed that the initial order of stay got confirmed
by the subsequent orders passed in the contempt matter.
7. We, therefore, hold that the High Court should have first
taken up the stay matter without any threat to the respondents
in the writ case of being punished for contempt. Only after
disposing it of, the other case should have been taken up. It is9 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DBCACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -10-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022further significant to note that the respondents before the High
Court were raising a serious objection disputing the claim of
the writ petitioner. Therefore, an order in the nature of
mandatory direction could not have been justified unless the
court was in a position to consider the objections and record a
finding, prima facie in nature, in favour of the writ petitioner.
Besides challenging the claim on merits, the respondent was
entitled to raise a plea of non-maintainability of a writ
application filed for the purpose of executing a decree. It
appears that at an earlier stage the decree in question was
actually put in execution when the parties are said to have
entered into a compromise. According to the case of the State
the entire liability under the decree (read with the compromise)
has already been discharged. The dispute, therefore, will be
covered by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. It will be a
serious question to consider whether in these circumstances the
writ petitioner was entitled to maintain his application under
Article 226 of the Constitution at all. We do not want to decide
any of these controversies between the parties at this stage
except holding that the orders passed in the contempt
proceeding were not justified, being premature, and must,
therefore, be entirely ignored. The High Court should first take
up the stay matter in the writ case, and dispose it of by an
appropriate order. Only thereafter it shall proceed to consider
whether the State and its authorities could be accused of being
guilty of having committed contempt of court.”
22. The further entwined therewith issue, which is required to
be also decided is whether the Contempt Court, can substitute itself into
an Executing Court, and, that too when an appeal against the relevant
order/direction is subjudice. In the above regard, the Apex Court in case
titled as R.N.Dey versus Bhagyabati Pramanik and others reported in
(2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 400, has held as under:-
“7. We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be
used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for10 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DBCACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -11-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022execution of the decree or implementation of an order for
which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion
given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court’s
dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no
right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as
contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. It is true that
in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending
and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First
Appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the
coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed
to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by
asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in
question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the
material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that claimants are
entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by
the trial Court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at
the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the
said award wherein the State can or may contend that the
award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no wilful or
deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt
proceedings was wholly unjustified.”
23. The further entwined therewith issue, which is required to
become also adjudicated, is that, whether the Contempt Court can grant
substantive relief. In the above regard, the relevant guidelines become
embodied in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and natural
Gas Corporate Limited and others versus M. George Ravishekaran
and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 373. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment (supra) becomes extracted
hereinafter
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this
Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power
available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt
11 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -12-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected,
could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with
commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest
of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than
not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self
determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of
equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while
considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court
in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would
appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at
the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak
Nath Ganguly and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 352, V.M.Manohar
Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another, (2004) 13 SCC 610,
Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative
Society Ltd. v Gautam Goswami and others (2008) 3 SCC 339
and Union of India and Others v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1
SCC 613.”
24. Therefore, the maintainability of the instant appeal against
the order (supra) made by the learned Contempt Bench, but is required
to be both delved into, besides is required to be adjudicated upon.
12 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -13-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
25. Be that as it may, this Court is also required to impart a
signification to the statutory coinage “jurisdiction to punish for
contempt” as occurs in sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1971.
Though, the meaning imparted thereto, by the learned counsel for the
respondent, is that, unless an order for imposition of punishment is
made upon the present appellants, therebys alone the instant appeal
directed against the impugned order, rather is maintainable, whereas, the
impugned order rather not imposing punishment upon the present
appellants, therebys the appeal filed thereagainst is not maintainable.
26. However, the said argument is required to be rejected, inter
alia on the following grounds:-
(a) The meaning to be imparted to the statutory coinage
(supra) is not, that the contemnor has to await the pronouncement of
punishment upon him. Contrarily the meaning to be imparted to the
statutory coinage (supra), is that, any order or decision recorded by the
learned Single Bench of this Court, while exercising contempt
jurisdiction, rather manifesting any proclivities towards ultimately
punishing the alleged contemnor for contempt. Resultantly therebys the
apposite maneuverings (supra), as are also clearly discernible from the
making of the apposite order, thus makings the apposite appeal to be
maintainable before the Appellate Court.
(b) The coinage “to punish for contempt” which exists
subsequent to the coinage “any order or decision of the High Court” is
an expression, whose effective impact cannot be restricted to the era of
ultimate awardings of punishment, as therebys any vitiated order passed
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DBCACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -14-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, despite existence of
valid extenuating explications (supra), thus well forbidding the learned
Single Benches, from initiating contempt action, besides when for
tangible reasons, rather apposite extensions of time are accordable, thus
for making compliance(s) with the order alleged to be purportedly
disobeyed, but may yet become also ill-countenanced. Resultantly
therebys if yet this Court also overlooks the beneficent mitigating
effects of all the possible, thus permissible extenuating pleas,
thereupons the said raised possible extenuating pleas, as become earlier
arbitrarily rejected by the learned Single Bench of this Court, but would
also similarly become arbitrarily rejected even by this Court.
27. Resultantly therebys the learned Single Bench of this Court
appears to rather than, as expostulated in verdicts (supra), that contempt
jurisdiction is to be sparingly exercised or becoming potentialized only
for upholding the majesty, and, dignity of the obeyable directions or the
orders passed by the Courts of law, thus through initiating contempt
action against the persons concerned, but contrarily rather has
whimsically and arbitrarily miskewed the contempt jurisdiction.
28. Ultimately, the preponderant reason, for this Court
concluding that the above submission addressed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the respondent, as appertains to the maintainability
of the present appeal, is required to be rejected, whereas, in this Court
declaring that the instant appeal becomes maintainable, thus becomes
hinged upon the hereinafter principles, relating to the maintainability of
appeals by the Appellate Court concerned, principles whereof, become
14 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -15-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
engrafted in paragraph No.11 of the verdict made by Hon’ble Apex
Court, in case titled as “Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. And
others V. Chunilal Nanda and others” reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399,
paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
“11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to
appeals against 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 of 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 betweenthe 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 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 Act, can also
encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute
15 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -16-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned
Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal),
or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases).
The first point is answered accordingly.”
29. Exceptions to the arguments raised (supra) by the learned
counsel for the respondent against the maintainability of the present
appeal, thus become well grooved in principle No. IV, whereins, it is
expounded that any direction or decision which is incidental to or is
inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, therebys,
the said does make the contempt appeal maintainable. Conspicuously
also when for all the reasons (supra), the learned Contempt Bench
concerned, through the making of the impugned order, has evidently
proclived towards punishing the contemnors for contempt, wherebys
also the instant appeal is maintainable.
30. Therefore, conspicuously unless the speaking rejection
order (supra) became successfully challenged in a writ petition
becoming filed by the present respondent, thereupon alone a right
became vested in the present respondent, to claim that such passed
binding and conclusive mandamus, but was intentionally disobeyed.
However, when the said speaking rejection order has not been
successfully challenged, therebys there was no vestment of any right in
the present respondent to claim, that there was any willful disobedience
of the order passed by this Court, nor therebys any jurisdiction became
vested in the learned Contempt Bench concerned, to pass the impugned
16 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -17-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
order.
31. Lastly, the principles of law which are required to hereafter
become considered to be applied by the learned Contempt Court, are the
ones which are stated in the instant case and also are the ones, as
become underlined in the verdict rendered by this Court in CACP No.
20 of 2024, titled as T.V.S.N. Prasad and others versus Resham Singh.
32. Furthermore, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the
impugned order passed by the learned Contempt Bench concerned, is an
ill informed order, initially on the ground, that even if the order dated
19.1.2024 (Annexure P-5), as became rendered by the competent
authority concerned, wherebys the apposite representation became
dismissed, yet when the dismissal of the representation occurring
through the making of the supra order (Annexure P-5), rendition
whereof is obviously in terms of the order passed by this Court on
9.9.2022. Resultantly therebys, the said rejection order was required to
be successfully challenged in a writ petition becoming reared
thereagainst, at the instance of the aggrieved revisionist. Moreover,
only on the said successful challenge, thus acquiring the firmest
conclusivity, and, effectivity, besides with the said decision yet
remaining purportedly willfully disobeyed, thereupon alone a contempt
petition was maintainable before the learned Contempt Bench.
33. Since the rejection order (supra) remains unsuccessfully
challenged, therebys it acquires a binding and conclusive effect. In
sequel, the supra rejection order makes mergers thereinto the award
(supra) made by the Lok Adalat. Though thereins there is a reference to
17 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -18-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
a letter dated 10.5.1999 received from the Land Acquisition Collector,
wherebys there were recommendations for excluding the subject lands
from acquisition. If so, the said letter was not to be construed, as has
been instantly done by the learned Contempt Bench, to be
tantamounting to an undertaking or a statement, especially when the
said recommendations did require an approval thereto becoming
accorded by the competent authority concerned. Since evidently no
approval has been stated by the learned State counsel, to be accorded
thereto, therebys it did not acquire any binding and complyable effect,
nor therebys any action for contempt was rearable either for the same
remaining unactioned at the instance of the appellants, nor the supra
extracted award of the Lok Adalat concerned, did yield any drawable
actionable contumacy qua the present appellants.
34. However, as stated (supra), since the writ petition bearing
CWP No. 20452 of 2022 resulted in an order for consideration of the
representation being made by the competent authority concerned, and,
which resulted in rejection order (Annexure P-5) becoming passed,
therebys reiteratedly, the said was to be successfully challenged, which
however, has not been done. Resultantly, conclusivity is acquired by
Annexure P-5, than by the award of the Lok Adalat concerned, nor
therebys the award of the Lok Adalat, as untenably done, required any
compliance.
35. Even otherwise, since the respondent herein deemed it fit
and appropriate to subsequent, to the passing of the award of the Lok
Adalat ventilate the said grievance, through its instituting a writ petition
18 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -19-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
(supra), which ultimately resulted in a rejection order (Annexure P-5)
becoming passed on the apposite representation, therebys also, the
present respondent acquiesces, that no actionable contempt emanated
from the supra made award by the Lok Adalt.
36. Even though, post the making of the supra extracted award
by the Lok Adalat, the land loosers concerned, thus alienated the subject
lands to the present respondent, but when the subsequent alienee, who is
the present respondent, had filed CWP No. 20452-2022, whereons an
order for consideration was passed, besides when pursuant thereto a
conclusive and effective rejection order became passed, thus on the
apposite representation, therebys also the award of the Lok Adalat
becomes eclipsed or becomes merged into the said binding and
conclusive rejection order, which however remains unsuccessfully
challenged.
37. Be that as it may, since in judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in case titled as Brajnandan Sinha versus Jyoti Narain AIR
1956 SC 66, it has been expostulated that the Lok Adalat, does not hold
the trappings of a Court, wherebys the awards’ made by the Lok
Adalats, if become infringed, do not generate in the aggrieved any cause
of action to raise any actionable claim for contempt thereofs.
Resultantly therebys no actionable contempt arose from the award of the
Lok Adalat. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment (supra) become
extracted hereinafter.
“x x x x
It is clear, therefore, that in order to constitute a Court in the
strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the
Court should have, apart from having some of the trappings
19 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -20-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
of a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive
judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are
the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement.
X x x x
The pronouncement of a definitive judgment is thus
considered the essential sine qua non of a Court and unless
and until a binding and authoritative judgment can be
pronounced by a person or body of persons it cannot be
predicated that he or they constitute a Court.
X x x x
The Act, however, does contemplate a ‘Court of Justice’
which as defined in Section 20, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
denotes ‘a judge who is empowered by law to act judicially’.
The least that is required of a Court is the capacity to deliver
a “definitive judgment.”
38. Resultantly, the making of the impugned order based upon
the supra extracted award of the Lok Adalat, which is not a Court, but
makes the impugned order to suffer from a gross illegality and
perversity.
39. Despite repeated insistences being made upon the learned
Contempt Bench of this Court to comply with the supra principles, yet
the learned Contempt Bench of this Court has repeatedly failed to do so.
Therefore, the learned Contempt Bench of this Court is directed to
ensure that hereafter strict compliances become made to the supra
principles, rather than in a slipshod and arbitrary manner, thus orders
alike the ones which are impugned before this Court, thus becoming
passed.
40. Conspicuously also when the present appeal is but a
continuation of the apposite contempt petition, therefore, this Court
alone held the competent jurisdiction to decide both the contempt
petition as well as the appeal as has arisen therefroms.
41. Last but not the least in terms of the provisions of Section
20 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -21-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provisions whereof become
extracted hereinafter, wherebys the procedures for regulating the
exercise of contempt jurisdiction becomes permitted to be created by the
High Court, thus this High Court has formulated the relevant procedural
rules which become nomenclatured as the Contempt of Court (Punjab
and Haryana) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’).
“23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make
rules.–
The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court,
may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.”
42. The relevant provisions which are of striking importance in
the instant case become embodied in Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules of
1974, rules whereof become extracted hereinafter.
“9. In the case of a civil contempt other than a contempt
referred to in section 14, the High Court may take action
(a) on its own motion; or
(b) on a petition presented by the party aggrieved; or
(c) in the case of any civil contempt of a subordinate court,
on reference made to it by that Court.
10. (1) In the case of civil contempt, other than a contempt
referred to in section 14, the person charged may file his
affidavit by way of reply to the charge and shall serve a copy
thereof on the petitioner on his counsel at least seven days
before the date of hearing.
(2) No further return, affidavit or document shall be filed
except with the leave of the High Court.
11. In the case of a civil contempt, the High Court may
determine the matter of charge either on affidavits filed or on
such further evidence as may be taken by itself or recorded by a
subordinate court in pursuance of a direction made by it, and
pass such order as the justice of the case requires, having
regard to the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the Act.”
21 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -22-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
43. Importantly it is stated in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 that
when proceedings qua commission of any purported civil contempt,
other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, thus become launched,
therebys the person charged is required to file an affidavit by way of
reply to the charge.
44. As such, the underpinnings which generate therefroms are
that the successful trial of the formulated charge appertaining to the
commission of any alleged civil contempt, thus is to be made, only after
satisfaction becoming drawn by the learned Contempt Bench, that the
person so charged but makes a feeble and weak plea in his reply on
affidavit, rather for justifying the purported contumacy, as become
allegedly committed by him. Resultantly therebys, since at the very
threshold the learned Contempt Bench, even without framing a charge
appertaining to the alleged commission of civil contempt, and, also
subsequently without proceeding to consider the justifiable extenuating
cause, as would become echoed in the reply on affidavit, wherebys the
contemnor may be amenable for being discharged, rather reiteratedly
has proceeded to conclude that civil contempt has been committed.
Resultantly, in terms of the supra rules formulated by the High Court,
the learned Contempt Bench of this Court but has, at the very threshold
rather derogated from the supra stated established procedure, thus in its
recording a finding, that the present appellants indulged in
contumacious conduct.
Final order
45. Hence, there is merit in the instant appeal and the same is
22 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007253-DB
CACP No. 19 of 2024 (O&M) -23-
in COCP No. 3034 of 2024
in CWP No. 20452 of 2022
allowed, and the impugned order dated 03.9.2024, as becomes drawn by
learned Single Bench is quashed, and, set aside, and, the present
appellants are discharged accordingly.
46. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also
disposed of.
47. A copy of this order be forthwith sent to the learned
Contempt Bench concerned, for subsequently complete adherence being
made to the above expostulated principles of law, and, it is expected that
hereafter the supra norms of propriety and judicial decorum remain
uneroded.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
January 16th, 2025
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
23 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:12:47 :::
[ad_1]
Source link