Sunita Choubey vs Neelima Dubey

There is a delay in filing of this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application for the delay and finding the same to be reasonable, the application is allowed. The delay in filing of this Contempt Appeal is condoned.

Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission.

A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Naveen Dubey to say that the appellant has not been punished for any contempt and, therefore, this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable.

Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel took us through the order passed by the Contempt Court and tried to emphasize that certain, prima-facie, findings are recorded against the appellant, which go to show that the appellant is found to be guilty of contempt and, thereafter, certain directions are also issued after imposing the cost, therefore, the appeal is maintainable.

We have heard rival contentions advanced and we have also gone through the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples'' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, relied upon by Shri Avinash Zargar.

On going through the material available on record, particularly, the order passed by the Contempt Court on 2.5.2014 in Contempt Case No.1922/2012, we find that after taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the learned Contempt Court came to the conclusion that time and again, opportunity was granted to the present appellant to correct herself but she did not do so. It was, thereafter, observed that it appears that the appellant was not properly advised, thus exposing her to the charge of non- compliance, which prima-facie may not be willful but still the order in the writ petition has not been complied with in it''s letter and spirit. However, after having said so, neither any order passed holding the appellant to be guilty of contempt, instead it is said that for the present, instead of punishing the respondent for non- compliance with the order, certain directions are issued and the cost for the litigation is imposed.

In the case of Midnapore (supra), the learned Supreme Court has formulated various questions, particularly, with regard to the question as to in what cases, an appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This question was formulated as Point No.1, which reads as under :

�(i) Where the High Court, in a contempt proceeding, renders a decision on the merits of a dispute between the parties, either by an interlocutory order of final judgment, whether the same is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? If not, what is the remedy of the person aggrieved?�

Thereafter, this question is answered in the following manner:

�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. 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 was 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. 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 can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

V. If the High Court 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 Single Judge and there was a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution (in other cases).�

If the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court is applied to the present case, it is clear that as the High Court has not passed any order exercising its jurisdiction to punish the appellant and as there is no order imposing any punishment for contempt, no appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable and as in this case, there is no positive direction holding the appellant guilty of contempt also, we are of the considered view that the requirements of Section 19 are not attracted.

What is indicated by the learned Court is only a prima-facie assessment thereafter, directions are issued for complying with the order passed by the Writ Court and in view of Clause-IV of the Point decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, against them, an appeal under Section 19 is not maintainable. The only remedy available to the appellant is to challenge the directions in accordance with law in an appropriate forum.

In view of the above, we uphold the preliminary objection raised by Shri Naveen Dubey and dispose of this appeal as not maintainable with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to such remedy as may be available, in case she has any grievance with regard to the directions issued by the Contempt Court.

With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, this Contempt Appeal is disposed of.