Special Appeals Against Contempt Court Order Maintainable Only When Finding On Merits Of Original Dispute Is Returned: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are maintainable against order of the Single Judge in Contempt jurisdiction only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction and enters into merits of the original dispute between the parties.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh sitting at Lucknow held,
“Special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute, ensuring that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. The interpretation of each case must consider the specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and provide appropriate remedies for aggrieved parties.”
The Court laid down the following principles as to when an appeal shall lie 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 against an order passed under the Contempt of Courts Act:
- Orders where punishment for contempt of Court is awarded will be appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, but any interlocutory order which does not prescribe punishment will not be appealable under Section 19.
- “Merits” of the dispute between the parties cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings, meaning thereby, that the core legal and factual questions that were or are being contested in the original litigation are not to be decided in contempt proceedings.
- The Contempt Court can only decide whether there is contempt of the order of the Court, the merits of the case are beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. When the Contempt Court passes order on merits, then Special Appeal under the High Court Rules shall be maintainable.
- Distinction between orders that address the procedural aspects of contempt proceedings and those that encroach upon the substantive issues of the original case essential to maintain integrity of the contempt proceedings.
Case Background
Appellant filed a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against order of the Single Judge closing contempt proceedings holding that substantial compliance of the order of the writ court had been made. Appellant was directed to go before the appropriate forum in case of any further grievance.
Counsel for respondent objected to the maintainability of the special appeal on grounds that contempt appeal under Section 19(1) can only be filed against an order where punishment has been awarded to the contemnor. Since the contempt application was disposed of on grounds of substantial compliance being made, it was argued that the order was not punitive in nature and thus not appealable. It was also argued that the only remedy against such order was to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Lastly, it was argued that the Contempt of Courts Act is a special Act vis-a-vis the Allahabad High Court Rules of 1952 as far as appeals regarding contempt proceedings are concerned.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that in Sheo Charan Vs. Naval and Others, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that contempt proceedings are a dispute between the court and the alleged contemnor and not between the parties. Thus, it is for the Court to decide whether to punish or to discharge the person based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Further, in Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Balgovind and 10 Others and Hub Lal Yadav Vs. Mahendra and Others, the Allahabad High Court had held that special appeal against order of the contempt court will not be maintainable except when orders are passed regarding the matter which falls within the writ jurisdiction.
“Since in contempt proceedings, the Court is invested with powers to punish which may include imprisonment and the Court while dealing with contempt proceedings also calls for a reply from the contemnor and thereafter considering the matter it frames charges and moreover the standard of proof is higher than required in civil cases, hence to some extent, the subject of contempt resembles criminal proceedings, hence, in some judicial decisions the powers of contempt is referred to as 'quasi criminal' but the fact remains that the Court does not take recourse to provisions of either the C.P.C. or the Cr.P.C.”
Thus, the Court held that the bar on special appeals in criminal matters does not extend upon contempt cases.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Vs. Chunni Lal Nanda and Others, the Court held that where the contempt court has transgressed its jurisdiction and returned the finding on the disputes between the party then intra court appeal would be maintainable.
Observing that both legislations were special acts operating in their own fields, the Court held that the subsequent legislation would prevail in case of inconsistencies. It was held that though there was no inconsistency between the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, but the Contempt of Courts Act would prevail over the Rules, if there was any.
Further, the Court observed that “the legislature has consciously not provided for an appeal against an order dropping the contempt proceedings.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the special appeal against the order of the contempt court 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]