2015 (7) TMI 1371 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt proceedings - Appellants have deliberately and willfully violated the ex parte interim order - HELD THAT - When admittedly the order dated 06.08.2013 was an ex parte one then in such circumstances, no sooner the Defendants (Appellants) entered appearance in the civil suit and filed their pleadings in reply to the Notice of Motion, the Court which is seized of the main case should have made sincere endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on merits in the light of the mandate contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code which in clear terms provides that the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted - It was not done by the Court may be due to myriad reasons despite the Appellants (Defendants) entering appearance as back as 21.08.2013 in the main suit and completing their pleadings on 05.09.2013. As a result, the ex parte ad-interim order dated 06.08.2013 remains in operation. The Notice of Motion is finally decided on merits in accordance with law one way or the other then the parties to the Lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and may also prosecute the contempt proceedings arising out of the main case, if need arises - It is always in the larger interest of the parties to the Lis to get the main case (Lis) decided first on its merits as far as possible rather than to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping the main case undecided. It is more so when any decision rendered in the main case has a bearing over the pending off-shoot proceedings. The Defendant in such case has a right to point out in the Notice of Motion, that the Plaintiff has neither any prima facie case in their favour nor there is any likelihood of Plaintiff to suffer any irreparable loss/injury in relation to subject matter of the suit, if injunction is declined to the Plaintiff and that no balance of convenience lies in the Plaintiff's favour and, therefore, the Court should not have granted ex parte injunction to the Plaintiff and even if it has granted then it should now be either recalled or modified, as the case may be - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interim orders in a civil suit, Contempt of Court Act application, violation of court orders, delay in disposal of legal proceedings, reconsideration of legal decisions, proper sequencing of legal proceedings, stay of contempt proceedings, disposal of Notice of Motion, refraining from giving findings on merits, keeping all issues open for future consideration.

Interim Orders in a Civil Suit:
The Respondent filed a civil suit against the Appellants seeking various reliefs, including injunctions, damages, and apologies. The Appellants challenged the interim orders passed by the Single Judge in favor of the Respondent. The appeals were filed against the interim orders dated 26.02.2014 and 31.10.2014. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the timely disposal of the main Notice of Motion in the civil suit before addressing the contempt proceedings arising from it. The Court directed the Single Judge to dispose of the Notice of Motion promptly within three months, staying the contempt proceedings until then.

Contempt of Court Act Application:
The Respondent filed a contempt petition against the Appellants, alleging a violation of the ex parte interim order dated 06.08.2013. The Single Judge entertained the contempt petition and issued notices to the Appellants. Subsequently, the Respondent filed an additional affidavit alleging fresh contempt by the Appellants. The Single Judge directed the issuance of another notice to show cause. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of deciding the main Notice of Motion before addressing contempt proceedings to avoid prejudice and ensure a fair legal process.

Violation of Court Orders and Delay in Disposal of Legal Proceedings:
The Appellants were accused of willfully violating court orders, leading to contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court noted the delay in the disposal of legal proceedings, particularly the Notice of Motion, which had been pending for an extended period. The Court highlighted the need for expeditious resolution of legal matters to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

Reconsideration of Legal Decisions and Proper Sequencing of Legal Proceedings:
The Appellants raised doubts about the correctness of a previous legal decision relied upon by the Respondent. The Supreme Court suggested that the Single Judge should first decide the Notice of Motion in the civil suit before delving into other legal issues or contempt proceedings. Proper sequencing of legal proceedings was deemed essential to ensure a systematic and fair adjudication process.

Stay of Contempt Proceedings and Disposal of Notice of Motion:
To prevent prejudice and maintain procedural integrity, the Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings until the Notice of Motion was disposed of by the Single Judge. The Court directed the expeditious disposal of the Notice of Motion within three months, emphasizing the importance of resolving the main legal matter before addressing ancillary issues like contempt.

Refaining from Giving Findings on Merits and Keeping Issues Open:
The Supreme Court refrained from making findings on the merits of the case or the legal issues discussed during the appeals. The Court directed the concerned courts to decide the matters strictly in accordance with the law without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment. All issues, including the Appellants' remedy options, were kept open for future consideration at the appropriate stage.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, procedural aspects, and the Supreme Court's directives regarding the timely disposal of legal proceedings and the proper sequencing of legal actions to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication process.