LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/k-k-gupta-ors-vs-himachal-pradesh-petroleum-dealers-association-anr-20180411/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

K. K Gupta & Ors. vs Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
11 April 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 3731 of 2018
Result
Disposed
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha
Citation
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1004 : 2018 INSC 327
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1004 : 2018 INSC 327
Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt Proceedings – Scope of – Writ petitions filed by respondents – By order dtd. 17.5.12, High Court passed direction to frame guidelines and till the guidelines were framed, there was a direction to maintain status quo as on the date of the judgment – Guidelines framed – Respondents filed contempt petition alleging that the said guidelines were in violation of judgment dtd. 17.5.2012 – High Court held that the guidelines framed were in violation of the judgment and issued further orders as well – Held: There was no violation of the status quo order granted on 17.5.2012 – Direction to maintain status quo was only till framing of guidelines – Once the guidelines were framed, the life of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired and thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines – In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the judgment which is alleged to have been violated – Impugned order is set aside.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is very difficult to appreciate the stand of the High Court that there was violation of the status quo order granted on 17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was only till framing of guidelines. Once the guidelines were framed, the life of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired and thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines framed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in any way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursue appropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the Judgment which is alleged to have been violated. The Court’s jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is to see whether there is willful disobedience of any direction or a contumacious attempt otherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sans that the rest should be left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters in other appropriate proceedings. [Para 7][1007-C-E]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the direction dated 28.05.2015 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Contempt Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014. It was the allegation of the respondents – writ petitioners that the policy guidelines dated 17.02.2014 framed pursuant to the directions issued by the court are in violation of the spirit of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012. It was also alleged that there is a violation of the interim arrangement made by the court
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →