2009 (9) TMI 1079 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with court orders.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in contempt proceedings.
3. Financial incapacity as a defense in contempt proceedings.
4. Execution of decrees versus contempt proceedings.

Summary:

1. Non-compliance with Court Orders:
This petition u/s Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeks to hold Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 guilty for not obeying the orders passed on 17.11.2000 by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.767 of 2000, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1049 and 1050 of 2002 on 31.8.2005. The petitioners, teachers at a non-aided English Medium School, were entitled to benefits of the 5th Pay Commission Recommendations from 1st May 1999, as per the High Court's order.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Contempt Proceedings:
Respondents argued that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition since the orders of the Supreme Court are said to have been disobeyed. They cited Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha vs. The State of Maharashtra, which held that the High Court cannot punish for contempt of the Supreme Court.

3. Financial Incapacity as a Defense in Contempt Proceedings:
Respondents contended that their non-compliance was not willful but due to financial difficulties. They presented affidavits and balance sheets showing significant financial losses and debts, arguing that the trust and the associated sugar factory were financially incapable of complying with the court orders. They cited several cases, including Dr. Prakash Watkar vs. Dr. Smt. Sadhna w/o Shashikant Waikar, to support that non-willful disobedience due to compelling circumstances should not be punished as contempt.

4. Execution of Decrees versus Contempt Proceedings:
Respondents argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to execute the decree as per Rule 21 of Chapter 17 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side, Service Rule 1960, rather than filing a contempt petition. They cited Food Corporation of India vs. Sukha Deo Prasad, which states that contempt jurisdiction is not intended for enforcement of money decrees.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, concluding that the non-compliance was due to financial difficulties rather than willful disobedience. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue other appropriate remedies available under the law.