1988 (6) TMI 54 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Alleged violation of the court's order dated 30th November 1987.
3. Contempt proceedings against various officers of the companies involved.
4. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
6. High Court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
7. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution in contempt proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Summons Issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The companies involved challenged the validity of the summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The court noted that the necessary summons were issued to various officers of the companies and the trial judge directed the petitioners to serve copies of the application within a stipulated time and maintain the status quo.

2. Alleged Violation of the Court's Order Dated 30th November 1987:
The companies filed an application for contempt against the officers alleging violation of the court's order dated 30th November 1987. The trial judge directed the contempt proceedings to be listed and restrained the respondents from giving effect to the summons in question or any other summons regarding the companies.

3. Contempt Proceedings Against Various Officers of the Companies Involved:
Summons were issued to various officers of the companies to appear before the Additional Collector. Subsequent writ petitions and applications for contempt were filed, including one dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The trial judge directed the officers to appear before the Additional Collector and considered applications for withdrawal of the writ petition and for contempt.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal Under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The court examined whether the appeal was maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It was argued that the order issuing a show cause notice was interlocutory and not appealable. The court held that an appeal under Section 19(1) lies only from an order or decision in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt, not from interlocutory orders.

5. Procedural Fairness and Adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the procedure in contempt proceedings should be fair and the contemners should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The trial judge's direction for personal appearance was seen as a part of the fair procedure, allowing the contemners to show cause before any punitive action.

6. High Court's Inherent Power to Punish for Contempt Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated that the High Court has the inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. This power includes the authority to direct the presence of contemners and secure compliance with court orders.

7. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution in Contempt Proceedings:
The court discussed the applicability of Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, in the context of contempt proceedings. It was argued that any procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable. The court concluded that the procedure followed by the trial judge did not violate Article 21 as it was in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the trial judge's orders, emphasizing the inherent powers of the High Court to punish for contempt and the necessity of fair procedures in such proceedings. The court found no violation of the principles of natural justice or the constitutional rights of the contemners.

← Previous Next →