2008 (12) TMI 782 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a Special Appeal from an interim order passed in contempt jurisdiction.
2. Whether a non-party to the original proceedings can be proceeded against for contempt.
3. Jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of Special Appeal:
The primary issue was whether a Special Appeal from an interim order passed by the court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction is maintainable. The appellant contended that the special appeal should have been dismissed in limine as per the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, [(2006) 5 SCC 399], which states that an appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 is maintainable only when an order of punishment has been made. The Division Bench of the High Court admitted the special appeal and stayed the interim order of the Single Judge, but did not initially provide reasons for its decision.

2. Non-party to Original Proceedings:
The appellant argued that the first respondent, who was not a party to the original writ petition, could be proceeded against for contempt as he was aware of the court's order and benefited from the impugned Government Order. The court noted that ordinarily, a person not a party to the original proceedings cannot be proceeded against in contempt unless exceptional circumstances are established. The court referenced Babulal v. Municipal Corpn., Ratlam, [(2005) 13 SCC 101], and S.N. Banerjee v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd., [AIR 1938 PC 295], emphasizing that a non-party deriving benefit from a Government Order may not be liable for contempt unless it is proven that they willfully and deliberately defied the court's direction.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act:
The court acknowledged the controversy regarding the appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It noted that while some decisions suggest an appeal is maintainable only when an order of punishment has been made, other decisions, such as R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, [(2000) 4 SCC 400], suggest that an appeal is maintainable if the jurisdiction is exercised under the Contempt of Courts Act. The court decided not to address the larger question of maintainability under Section 19 vis-à-vis the Letters Patent of the High Court, as the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed both the interim order of the Single Judge and the order of the Division Bench, directing the Single Judge to consider the merit of the contempt matter only after the disposal of the related writ petition. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.