1984 JTR(SC) 226
1984 AIR(SC) 1826 ; 1984 10 AllLR 755 ; 1984 AWC 994 ; 1984 2 Crimes(SC) 800 ; 1985 CrLJ 353 ; 1984 EastCrC(SC) 443 ; 1984 GLH 1119 ; 1984 2 Scale 213 ; 1984 4 SCC 216 ; 1984 SCC(Cri) 587 ; 1985 1 SCR 598 ; 1984 UJ 1105 ; 1984 KLT(Online) 1272 ; 1984 KHC 825
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Mohammad Idris and another, Petitioners v. Rustam Jehangir Bapuji and others, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 9395 of 1984
Decided on 22-8-1984.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. N. Keshwani, Advocate for Petitioners; Mrs. R. Karenjawala, Advocate for Respondents.
* Appeal No. 721 of 1984, D/- 10-8-1984 (Bom).
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : S.19(1), S.12, S.2(b)
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sections 12 and 2(b) define the scope and nature of civil contempt arising from breach of undertakings given to the court, while section 19(1) confers a statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court from any order punishing for contempt by a single Judge. Article 136 of the Constitution provides a separate avenue for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but does not override the right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act where the order of a single Judge is challenged. In this case, the provisions of sections 19(1) and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with section 12, were engaged on account of the petitioners alleged breach of an undertaking, leading to an order of committal for contempt by a Single Judge, which was appealable as of right to the Division Bench.
(B) Key legal principles include that a clear breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes gross civil contempt; a single Judge of the High Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt and to pass orders including committal; an appeal lies as of right to a Division Bench against any order of a Single Judge under section 19(1); and the dismissal of such an appeal precludes any further appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 unless the appeal involves a substantial question of law.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were alleged to have breached an undertaking given in Suit No. 2308 of 1983 in the Bombay High Court. On this allegation, a notice was issued to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. A Single Judge found that the petitioners, particularly defendants Nos. 4 and 6, showed utter contempt for the courts orders and the undertaking, committed gross contempt, and ordered their committal to civil jail for one month. The petitioners appealed to the Division Bench under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Division Benchs judgment before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judge found that the petitioners had committed gross contempt in clear breach of their undertaking and that no lenient view was warranted. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of committal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal under section 19(1) was the correct and complete remedy, that the undertaking was directly related to the property in suit, and that the directions given by the Single Judge were appropriate to close the breach.
Issues:
Whether the undertaking given by the petitioners extended to the property in suit and whether the Single Judge was justified in issuing directions additional to punishment for contempt; whether the appeal under section 19(1) lay as of right and was the proper and exhaustive remedy; and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Special Leave Petition against the Division Benchs order.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a High Court Single Judge commits a party for contempt of court for breaching an undertaking, section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act provides a statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench, which is the proper and exhaustive remedy; the Supreme Court cannot entertain a Special Leave Petition against such an order unless it involves a substantial question of law, and the court may legitimately direct measures necessary to enforce undertakings and prevent further contempt.
Result:
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, and the appeal to the Division Bench is upheld, with the petitioners required to comply with the directions issued to close the breach of the undertaking.
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sections 12 and 2(b) define the scope and nature of civil contempt arising from breach of undertakings given to the court, while section 19(1) confers a statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court from any order punishing for contempt by a single Judge. Article 136 of the Constitution provides a separate avenue for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but does not override the right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act where the order of a single Judge is challenged. In this case, the provisions of sections 19(1) and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with section 12, were engaged on account of the petitioners alleged breach of an undertaking, leading to an order of committal for contempt by a Single Judge, which was appealable as of right to the Division Bench.
(B) Key legal principles include that a clear breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes gross civil contempt; a single Judge of the High Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt and to pass orders including committal; an appeal lies as of right to a Division Bench against any order of a Single Judge under section 19(1); and the dismissal of such an appeal precludes any further appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 unless the appeal involves a substantial question of law.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were alleged to have breached an undertaking given in Suit No. 2308 of 1983 in the Bombay High Court. On this allegation, a notice was issued to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. A Single Judge found that the petitioners, particularly defendants Nos. 4 and 6, showed utter contempt for the courts orders and the undertaking, committed gross contempt, and ordered their committal to civil jail for one month. The petitioners appealed to the Division Bench under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Division Benchs judgment before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judge found that the petitioners had committed gross contempt in clear breach of their undertaking and that no lenient view was warranted. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of committal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal under section 19(1) was the correct and complete remedy, that the undertaking was directly related to the property in suit, and that the directions given by the Single Judge were appropriate to close the breach.
Issues:
Whether the undertaking given by the petitioners extended to the property in suit and whether the Single Judge was justified in issuing directions additional to punishment for contempt; whether the appeal under section 19(1) lay as of right and was the proper and exhaustive remedy; and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Special Leave Petition against the Division Benchs order.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a High Court Single Judge commits a party for contempt of court for breaching an undertaking, section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act provides a statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench, which is the proper and exhaustive remedy; the Supreme Court cannot entertain a Special Leave Petition against such an order unless it involves a substantial question of law, and the court may legitimately direct measures necessary to enforce undertakings and prevent further contempt.
Result:
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, and the appeal to the Division Bench is upheld, with the petitioners required to comply with the directions issued to close the breach of the undertaking.
R.KARANJAWALA, R.M.KESHVANI
JUDGMENT
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:—On an allegation that the petitioners had acted in breach of an undertaking given by them in Suit No. 2308 of 1983 in the High Court of Bombay, a notice was issued to them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of court. Cause was sought to be shown. A learned single Judge, of the High Court recorded the following finding :-
"In my judgment the action of defendants Nos. 4, and 6 clearly shows utter contempt for the orders of the court and undertaking given by them. I have no hesitation in holding that these defendants have committed gross contempt of Court ............. in my judgment, there is no circumstance whatsoever to take any lenient view of the gross contempt committed by defendants 4 and 6 and both of them are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act."
2. On those findings the learned Single Judge committed each of the two petitioners to the civil jail for the period of one month. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court under S. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench and the present Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench. Shri Ramesh N. Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Petition for Special Leave to appeal has been filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution, the petitioners have, in law, filed an appeal as of right under S. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The submission has only to be stated to be rejected as totally lacking in substance. S.19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act-is as follows :-
"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt -
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the SC;
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the SC."
3. If the order of committal for contempt of Court is made by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. If the order of committal for contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right to the SC. Where an appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal gets exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the SC, Shri Keshwani cited to us Purushottam Das Goel v. Hon. Justice B. S. Dhillon AIR 1978 SC 1014. The decision is entirely irrelevant.
4. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the undertaking given was not in respect of the property concerned and that in any case the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving certain directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. We find no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel. There was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the petitioners and we are of the opinion that the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1826