Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 19 – Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 – The position w.r.t. appeals against orders in contempt proceedings – Reiterated: Held: Para 11 of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. case sums up the principles in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings, as under:I.
An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II.
Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III.
In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV.
Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V.
If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article
136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). [Para 13]
Letter Patent Appeal – Whether it lies in the facts of the case – Principles laid down in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 applied:
Held: Single Judge in his order held that – (1) the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order; (2) the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG; and (3) gave an opportunity to the Appellants “to issue a fresh order granting promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG” to bring him at par with his immediate junior – There is a crystallized finding about the entitlement of Respondents and guilt of Appellants – The finding on Appellants’ guilt cannot be challenged under Section 19 Contempt Act at this stage since there is no order imposing punishment – The finding with regard to the entitlement of promotion is amenable to challenge as per principle laid down in Para 11 (V) of the Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others judgment – Letter Patent Appeal restored. [Paras 15, 17, 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.