HC: Provision of appeal is extremely limited and ‘regulated’ under the Contempt of Courts Act

  

Read Judgment;

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sarojini Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti vs Shri Suresh Kumar & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee held that the provision of appeal is extremely limited and ‘regulated’ under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Facts

This appellant through this appeal challenged the order whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the contempt petition of petitioner/appellant finding that the cluster in question was not a notified one and thus the action of the respondents in demolishing the clusters was not violative of orders passed by this Court in Ajay Maken & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., albeit after expressing that it will be open to petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court, if not already filed, to establish their case as to the entitlement of benefits entailing from the judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken (supra).

It observed that scant regard must be shown towards the order of the Court to establish wilful disobedience to make out a civil contempt u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“the Act”). Further it was also held that if such wilful disobedience is observed, then the Court must take cognizance of it as such contempt undermines the dignity of the Court and outrages the majesty of law.

Observations by the Court

 

The Bench noted that a plain reading of the Act reveals that the provision of appeal is extremely limited and according to us ‘regulated’. The availability and maintainability of an appeal u/s 19 of the Act is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or being punished under the act and in no other case. It further noted that there was no occasion for the respondents to be held guilty of contempt:

“It is an established concept of law that a contempt is only between the alleged Contemner and the Court. Appellant by setting into motion the machinery of the Court for issuance of contempt has failed to bring to notice anything which constitutes contempt by respondents, therefore no act of contempt has been committed by them. As such the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the contempt petition was not maintainable and dismissed the same. So much so, the learned Single Judge has rightly expressed that it will be open to petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court, if not already filed, to establish their case as to entitlement to benefits of the judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken (supra).”

It concurred with the order of the learned Single Judge who held that the action of the respondents in demolishing the Clusters was not violative of the orders of this Court in Ajay Maken (supra).

Judgment

This Court concluded that the appellant was unable to join the dots, either in facts or in law to maintain this appeal. So, this appeal was dismissed.

 

Case: Sarojini Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti vs Shri Suresh Kumar & Ors.

Citation: CONT.APP. (C) 22/2022 & CM APPL. 45906-45909/2022

Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Saurabh Banerjee

 Decided on: 1^st November 2022

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure