Mohammad Idris & ANR Vs. Rustam
Jahangir Babuji & Ors [1984] INSC 158 (27 August 1984)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1826 1985 SCR (1) 598 1984
SCC (4) 216 1984 SCALE (2)213
ACT:
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19~1).
High Court-Single Judge-ordering committal
for contempt of court Appealed before Division Bench-Dismissed-Whether
statutory right of appeal lies to supreme Court.
HEADNOTE:
The two petitioners in the Special Leave
Petition were committed to the civil jail for a period of one month by Single
Judge of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they had
acted in breach of an undertaking given by them in a suit pending in the High
Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 19(1) of the Act
to a Division Bench was dismissed.
In the Special Leave Petition it was
contended on behalf of the petitioners that : though the petition had been
filed under Article 136 the petitioners have, in law, an appeal as of right
under Section 19(1), and (2) the Single Judge was not justified in giving
directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition,
HELD:1. 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. If
the order of committal of contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies
as of right to the Supreme Court. Where an appeal is filed against the order of
the Single Judge to a Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal gets
exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court.[600B.C]
2. As there was a clear breach of the
undertaking given by the petitioners, the Single Judge was quite right in
giving appropriate directions to close the breach. [600E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 9395 of 1984.
From the Judgment and order dated the 10th
August, 1984 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984.
R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
599 R. Karenjawala for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 under
taking 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." 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
Article 136 of the Constitution, the petitioners have, in law, 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. Section 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 600 Supreme Court;
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 Supreme Court." If the order of committal for
contempt or 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 Supreme Court. Where an appeal is filed
against the order of the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench, the
statutory right or appeal gets exhausted and there is no further right of
appeal to the Supreme Court Shri Keshwani cited to us Purushottam Das Goel v.
Hon. Justice B.S Dhillon.(1) The decision is entirely irrelevant.
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 N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
Back
