Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— Ss. 19, 10 & 11 — Appeal under S. 19 against orders passed in contempt proceedings — When maintainable and when not — Remedy, if any, in case of non-appealable order/decision — Case-law discussed — Any direction issued or decision made by High Court, in contempt proceedings, on the merits of a dispute between the parties unless incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, held, is not in the exercise of <169>jurisdiction to punish for contempt<170> and, therefore, not appealable under S. 19 — However, such an order can be challenged in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a Single Judge and there was a provision for intra-court appeal) or by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution, (2006) 5 SCC 399-A

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— Ss. 10 and 11 — Contempt proceedings — Matters that can be decided in — Held, High Court can, in contempt proceedings, decide whether any contempt of court was committed, if yes, the quantum of punishment and matters incidental thereto — However, in such proceedings it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties — In the present case, suspended bank employee filing contempt petition for non-completion of departmental enquiry within the time-limit fixed by High Court — He impleading several parties therein as respondents — However, High Court finding a prima facie case to have been made out only against the enquiry officer S — High Court therefore issuing show-cause notice to S — In such circumstances, held, High Court ought to have decided whether there was any wilful disobedience of its order by S and, if so, punished him for contempt — It could not in the contempt proceeding make an order that S had by his conduct disqualified himself to be the enquiry officer and that another enquiry officer should be appointed — Further directions that the complainant should be reinstated in service with full back wages with deemed continuity of service, that he should not be prevented from discharging his duties and that the suspension order should be deemed to have been revoked, held, not justified as they were outside the scope of contempt proceedings — Hence, set aside, (2006) 5 SCC 399-B

High Courts

Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court

— Cl. 15 — Term <169>judgment<170> occurring in — Scope — Held, it covers not only the judgments and orders stated respectively in S. 2(9) and Or. 43 R. 1 CPC but also interlocutory orders which might have finality in regard to some collateral matter affecting the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties — Categories of interlocutory orders falling within and falling without the scope of the term <169>judgments<170> for the purpose of filing letters patent appeals specified — Interlocutory order passed by Single Judge, High Court in contempt proceeding, directing the complainant to be reinstated with full back wages, held, was an <169>interlocutory judgment<170> which finally decided several rights and obligations of the employee vis-à-vis the employer — Hence, appealable under cl. 15, (2006) 5 SCC 399-C

High Courts

Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court

— Cl. 15 — Appeal under — Maintainability — Standing — Suspended bank employee filing contempt application impleading the Chairman and the Secretary in charge of the Bank eo nomine as respondents but not impleading the Bank — Proceeding on the basis that the said two officers of the Bank represented the Bank, Single Judge of High Court directing them to reinstate the complainant and to pay all salary arrears to him — In such circumstances although the Bank did not file any appeal, the appeal filed by the Chairman and Secretary in charge of the Bank eo nomine, held nonetheless maintainable as directions were issued to them and they were persons aggrieved, (2006) 5 SCC 399-D