9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1315 - SC - Indian LawsDismissal of contempt petition filed by the Appellants - failure to discharge his obligation under the MoU inasmuch as the Respondent has started operating another entity from the premises of the company is siphoning off plant and machinery which was owned by the company and is defaulting in paying instalments of the term loan - HELD THAT - The learned Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024 has reviewed the entire order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th December 2023. After the order was passed on 5th December 2023 another learned Single Judge could have only considered whether the Respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged the contempt as to whether he should be punished or not under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. It was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not. If the Respondent was of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5th December 2023 holding him to be guilty of contempt was not correct in law the only option available to him was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Having accepted the order dated 5th December 2023 the Respondent could not have contended or for that matter the learned Single Judge could not have held that the Respondent has not committed contempt of the Court. It is a different matter as to whether the Court while considering the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 could have arrived at a finding as to whether the Respondent was liable to be punished or not or whether in the facts of the case he should be discharged or the punishment awarded was liable to be remitted on apology made to the satisfaction of the Court or not. The order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that the Respondent had not committed contempt amounts to sitting in an appeal over the order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 5th December 2023. It is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial propriety. When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the Respondent to be guilty of contempt another Judge could not have come to a finding that the Respondent was not guilty of contempt. Conclusion - i) A coordinate Bench of the same Court cannot overturn or revisit the findings of another coordinate Bench on the question of contempt guilt except through proper appellate procedure. ii) After a finding of contempt and grant of time to purge subsequent proceedings before another Judge should be limited to whether contempt is purged or punishment is warranted. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge of the High Court for considering the issue from the stage of the passing of the order dated 5th December 2023 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of the later Single Judge's review of the earlier contempt finding Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Sections 12, 13, and 19, governs the procedure for contempt proceedings, including the power to punish for contempt and the right to appeal. Judicial propriety dictates that a coordinate Bench of the same Court should not overturn or revisit findings of another coordinate Bench except through proper appellate mechanisms. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized that once a learned Single Judge of the High Court had, after considering merits, held the Respondent guilty of contempt and granted time to purge the contempt or face punishment, another Single Judge could not revisit the issue of guilt itself. The later Judge was only empowered to consider whether the contempt was purged or the Respondent should be punished, not to re-examine the question of guilt. Key evidence and findings: The order dated 5th December 2023 by the first Single Judge unequivocally held the Respondent guilty of "intentionally and malafidely violating the orders dated 11th June 2020 and 1st July 2020" and directed the Respondent to purge contempt or file an affidavit explaining why punishment should not be imposed. Application of law to facts: The later Single Judge's order dated 3rd July 2024 discharged the show cause notice and dismissed the contempt petition on the ground that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience. This amounted to re-assessing the guilt, which was beyond the scope of the later Judge's jurisdiction. Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellants argued that the later Judge had effectively sat in appeal over the earlier order, breaching settled legal principles. The Respondent contended that the later Judge's order was a considered conclusion after reviewing all materials. The Court rejected this, holding that the proper remedy for the Respondent was to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the earlier order if aggrieved. Conclusions: The later Single Judge's revisiting of the contempt finding was impermissible and amounted to excess of jurisdiction and breach of judicial propriety. Issue 2: Proper procedural approach under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act provide the procedure for initiating and adjudicating contempt proceedings, including issuance of show cause notices and punishment. Section 19 provides for appeals against contempt orders. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court clarified that after a finding of guilt and grant of time to purge contempt, the subsequent hearing should focus on whether the contempt was purged or punishment should be imposed. The Court held that the later Judge should not have re-opened the question of guilt but should have dealt with the consequences of the prior finding. Key evidence and findings: The record showed that the Respondent was given time to purge contempt or explain why punishment should not be imposed, but the later Judge dismissed the contempt petition on merits without following this procedural framework. Application of law to facts: The procedural misstep by the later Judge undermined the statutory scheme and the orderly conduct of contempt proceedings. Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's counsel argued that the later Judge's order was well reasoned and considered all facts, including subsequent developments. The Court held that procedural correctness and jurisdictional limits override such considerations when they lead to impermissible re-hearing of guilt. Conclusions: The procedural approach adopted by the later Judge was flawed and contrary to the Contempt of Courts Act. Issue 3: Judicial propriety and jurisdictional limits in contempt proceedings before coordinate Benches Relevant legal framework and precedents: Established principles of judicial propriety and discipline require that coordinate Benches of the same Court do not overturn or contradict each other's findings, except through appellate or review mechanisms. This preserves consistency, finality, and respect for judicial authority. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the later Single Judge's order amounted to sitting in appeal over the prior order of another Single Judge, which is impermissible. It emphasized that such conduct is not only an excess of jurisdiction but also contrary to settled principles of judicial propriety. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order directly contradicted the earlier order on the key issue of contempt guilt. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the later Judge should have confined itself to the limited scope of considering purging of contempt or punishment, not revisiting guilt. Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's counsel sought to justify the order on merits and subsequent developments, but the Court underscored that procedural propriety and jurisdictional boundaries take precedence. Conclusions: The later Judge's order violated judicial propriety and jurisdictional limits. Issue 4: Whether the appeal against the dismissal of contempt petition should be allowed Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court's supervisory jurisdiction under special leave petitions allows correction of jurisdictional and procedural errors in lower courts. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found merit in the appeal on the ground that the later Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by revisiting the contempt finding and thereby erred in law. Key evidence and findings: The record showed the chronological order of events and the conflicting judgments by coordinate Benches. Application of law to facts: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd July 2024 and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge of the High Court to proceed from the stage of the order dated 5th December 2023. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the need for procedural correctness against the Respondent's arguments but prioritized adherence to legal principles. Conclusions: The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted for proper adjudication in accordance with law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
The core principles established are:
The final determination was to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd July 2024 and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration from the stage of the order dated 5th December 2023, thereby restoring the procedural and jurisdictional correctness in the contempt proceedings.
|
