9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the court and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication, ought not to have been taken up by the High Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction. It is noted that it is the Respondent No. 1 who not being satisfied with the order passed by the High Court, filed the special leave petition. Even in the communications sent apart from the Press Note, it is nowhere stated that the order passed by the court could be violated. It is found that the subsequent developments also shall enure to the benefit of the Appellants. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - Sanjay Kishan Kaul And M.M. Sundresh, JJ. For Appellant: Arunabh Chowdhury, Barnali Chowdhury, Vaibhav Tomar, Rahul Pratap, Advs. and Coac, AOR For Respondents: Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR, Manish Goswami, Adv. and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court finding the Appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5491 of 2001 etc. dated 12.09.2008 in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the orders passed by the Division Bench with respect to the direct evidence produced by the members of the Respondent No. 1 were not looked into and scrutinized on purpose while levying cess, a contempt petition was filed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 401 of 2008. Incidentally, the Respondent No. 1 also filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11317 of 2009 challenging the order of the Division Bench dated 12.09.2008, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 9655 of 2013, wherein, leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2013. e) In the aforesaid contempt petition, the Division Bench vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2009 took note of certain documents produced by two members of the Respondent No. 1, such as sale invoices, lorry challans, tax challans, insurance receipts etc. It went into the factual assertions made, notwithstanding the committee constituted by it earlier for the aforesaid purpose and accordingly, hauled all the Appellants for committing willful disobedience. f) Against the aforesaid order punishing the Appellants for having committed a contumacious act, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10538 of 2010 was filed by the Board and on grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant died on 27.02.2017. There is no willful and deliberate violation of the order involved. The High Court has erred in going into the facts in appreciating evidence. It exceeded its jurisdiction which it declined to exercise even while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It could have relegated the members of the Respondent No. 1 to go before the committee constituted. There is absolutely no material to implicate the Appellants with the alleged action of their subordinates. The concept of vicarious liability is alien to a contempt jurisdiction. Unconditional apologies were also rendered before the High Court. The Respondent No. 1 is the one who simultaneously assailed the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench, before this Court, while approaching the High Court under its contempt jurisdiction. Even otherwise, in light of the subsequent developments, the appeal deserves to be allowed. On the aforesaid submissions, the Appellants placed reliance upon various decisions of this Court in the case of: Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Godha and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 1 Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569 Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings. 9. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid settled principle of law except by quoting the reasoned decision of this Court in Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, wherein the celebrated judgment in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, has been quoted. The following paragraphs would govern the aforesaid principle: 18. At the outset, we must advert to the contours delineated by this Court for initiating civil contempt action in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 204. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 of the reported decision, this Court noted thus: 11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255, Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC 753. xxx xxx xxx 15. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592. Similarly, in R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400, this Court expounded in paragraph 7 as follows: 7. We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts. xxx xxx xxx 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er occasion while dealing with the challenge made to Section 21 of the Act, made a categorical assertion that it did not wish to go into the disputed questions of fact. However, in the order under challenge it was done. A finding has been given on the documents produced by the Respondent No. 1 which could at best be pieces of evidence to be appreciated by the committee constituted already. It is the specific case of the Appellants that they did not violate the directives of the court. There is no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates, or that they acted in collusion with each other. Vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. The question as to whether the drivers of two members of the Respondent No. 1 showed the order passed by the court and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication, ought not to have been taken up by the High Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction. We may note that it is the Respondent No. 1 who not being satisfied with the order passed by the High Court, filed the special leave petition. Even in the communications sent apart from the Press Note, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
