Appeal Not Maintainable U/S.19 Of Contempt Of Courts Act Against Order Dismissing Contempt Application: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated an appeal under section 19 of Contempt Of Courts Act is not maintainable against an order dismissing the contempt application.
The Apex Court referred to its judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 wherein it has been observed that 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 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “ In any case, in view of a specific bar, the remedy available to Respondent No.1, if any, was to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by way of special leave petition.”
Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati represented the Petitioners while Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Singh represented the Respondents.
The ASG submitted before the Court that the Special Appeal Defective filed by respondent No.1 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order passed by the Single Judge-Bench in Contempt Application preferred by respondent No.1, itself was not tenable. By the said order, the Single Judge held that the appellants didn’t commit contempt of the order of the Single Judge and therefore in view of its decision in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399, the appeal was not tenable.
However, it was the case of the respondents that the Single Judge, while deciding the contempt application had gone into the merits of the matter and therefore in view of paragraph 11, clause V of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (supra), the appeal was very much tenable.
The Bench extensively discussed the law pertaining to maintainability of appeals under section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act against orders in contempt proceedings Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (supra). In paragraph 11 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down five circumstances pertaining to the maintainability of appeals. Clause V of the said paragraph says that if the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intracourt 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).
Moreover, Clause II states that 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.
On a perusal of the order of the Single Judge, the Bench observed that it was held therein that no case for contempt was made out and as such the said contempt application preferred by respondent No.1 was dismissed. “As such, in view of clause II of paragraph 11 of the judgment of this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (supra), the appeal itself was not tenable”, the Bench said.
The Court also rejected the reliance placed by the respondent No.1/employee on Clause V as there was no adjudication or direction with regard to the merits of the matter by the Single Judge in the order. “In any case, in view of a specific bar, the remedy available to Respondent No.1, if any, was to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by way of special leave petition”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order.
The Court concluded the matter by observing, “In the event Respondent No.1 files special leave petition before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th January 2022, she would be entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period during which the proceedings were pending before the Division Bench of the High Court and before this Court.”
Cause Title: Deepak Kumar v. Devina Tewari [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 925]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Ankit Goel, Advocates Nikhil Sharma & Harshit Singhal
Respondents: Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Singh, AOR Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advocates Shighra Kumar, Devansh Shekhar, Subasri Jaganathan, Ananttika Singh, AOR Sudipto Sircar
