The Allahabad High Court has ruled that special appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are maintainable against orders of a Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction only when the Contempt Court oversteps its authority and addresses the merits of the original dispute between the parties. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, held that special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only when the Contempt Court exceeds its jurisdiction by addressing the substantive merits of the original dispute, thereby ensuring the protection of the parties' rights. Each case must be interpreted based on its specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and provide appropriate remedies for the aggrieved parties.
The Court outlined certain principles regarding when an appeal is permissible under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and when a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 can be filed against an order passed under the Contempt of Courts Act. First, orders where punishment for contempt is awarded are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, interlocutory orders that do not impose punishment are not appealable under Section 19. Second, the merits of the original dispute cannot be considered during contempt proceedings. The legal and factual questions at issue in the original case are beyond the scope of contempt proceedings. Third, the Contempt Court is limited to deciding whether contempt of a court order has occurred, and cannot rule on the merits of the case itself. If the Contempt Court passes an order on the merits, a special appeal under the High Court Rules is maintainable. Finally, a distinction must be made between orders addressing procedural aspects of contempt proceedings and those that encroach on the substantive issues of the original case, as this distinction is key to maintaining the integrity of contempt jurisdiction.
Case Background
In this case, the appellant filed a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, challenging a Single Judge's order that closed contempt proceedings. The Single Judge had ruled that there had been substantial compliance with the writ court’s order and directed the appellant to approach the appropriate forum for further grievances. The respondent’s counsel objected to the maintainability of the special appeal, arguing that under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal can only be filed against an order awarding punishment for contempt. Since the contempt proceedings were closed based on substantial compliance, and no punishment was awarded, the order was not punitive and thus not appealable. It was also argued that the only remedy against such an order was to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the counsel contended that the Contempt of Courts Act is a special act, and thus appeals regarding contempt proceedings should be governed by it rather than the Allahabad High Court Rules.
High Court Verdict
The High Court referred to the case Sheo Charan Vs. Naval and Others, where it was held that contempt proceedings are a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor, not between the parties. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide whether to punish or discharge the contemnor based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, in the cases Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Balgovind and 10 Others and Hub Lal Yadav Vs. Mahendra and Others, the court had ruled that special appeals against contempt orders are not maintainable unless the orders pertain to matters within writ jurisdiction.
The court observed that contempt proceedings, while not criminal in nature, bear some resemblance to criminal proceedings, as they involve the potential for punishment, including imprisonment. In certain cases, contempt proceedings have been referred to as "quasi-criminal" due to the higher standard of proof required. However, the court noted that contempt proceedings do not fall under the purview of either the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) or the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Vs. Chunni Lal Nanda and Others, the High Court held that an intra-court appeal would be maintainable when the Contempt Court exceeds its jurisdiction and rules on the underlying dispute between the parties. The court further noted that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, are both special legislations, but in case of any inconsistency, the more recent legislation would prevail. However, the court found no inconsistency between the two statutes, but clarified that the Contempt of Courts Act would take precedence if any conflict were to arise. Additionally, the court pointed out that the legislature has deliberately not provided for an appeal against an order dismissing contempt proceedings.
As a result, the court dismissed the special appeal against the order discharging the contemnor.
Case Title: Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami, Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow, and 2 Others [Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023]
.jpeg)
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.