LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/r-k-arora-general-manager-anr-vs-m-s-ace-enterprises-20180207/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

R. K. Arora General Manager & Anr. vs M/s Ace Enterprises

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 February 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 1820 of 2018
Result
Disposed
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Citation
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 491 : 2018 INSC 112
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 1 S.C.R. 491 : 2018 INSC 112
Headnote

Contempt of Court – Contempt petition – Maintainability of – On facts, allegation of violation of injunction order – Application by respondent for initiating contempt – Dismissal of the application by the trial court holding that there was no contempt – High Court held that Sub-Judge assumed a jurisdiction, not vested in it under law – On appeal, held: Though an application for contempt was filed before the trial court, it was, in fact, a petition for taking action u/Or. XXXIX, r.2A of the 1977 Act – It is not a case for initiating contempt on the face of it – These are two different jurisdictions, which has been clarified by the High Court – Application filed by the respondent for initiating contempt to be treated as an application for taking action u/Or. XXXIX, r. 2A of the 1977 Act – Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1977 – Or. XXXIX, r. 2A Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Though an application for contempt was filed before the trial court, it was, in fact, a petition for taking action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1977. It is not a case for initiating contempt on the face of it. These are two different jurisdictions. That is all that has been clarified by the High Court. It is directed that the application filed by the respondent for initiating contempt would be treated as an application for taking action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the 1977 Act. The trial court would first see whether there is any disobedience of the order of injunction and in case there is a finding of disobedience, the rest u/Or. XXXIX r. 2A alone shall follow.[Para 7][495-F-H; 496-A]

1.2 The submission made by the appellants regarding separate contracts and pending application under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act etc. are open to the appellants to canvas before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Being a matter pending since long, the trial court is directed to decide the application expeditiously. [Para 8][496-B-C]

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. 1. Leave granted. 2. On 22.06.2011, the Court of Small Causes, Srinagar, passed an order of injunction in the following terms :- “The application in hand will not be allowed, there are chances that the suit of the applicant will become infructuous. So in the interests of justice the application in hand is allowed and the proceedings before the arbitration with regard to matter titled M/s ACE Enterprises Vs. Union of India and ors is stayed till the objections from the other side is filed. Put up this file on 26-07-11.” 3. Alleging viola
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 →