“Wastage Of Court's Valuable Time”: Telangana HC Imposes Fine On Party For Initiating Contempt Proceedings Without Any Evidence To Support Claim
The Telangana High Court has held that initiating contempt proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes an abuse of legal process and a waste of court resources. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty thus imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on Mohammed Nayeem who had initiated contempt proceedings against Naveditha Manvikar, emphasizing the need for willful and deliberate disobedience for...
The Telangana High Court has held that initiating contempt proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes an abuse of legal process and a waste of court resources.
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty thus imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on Mohammed Nayeem who had initiated contempt proceedings against Naveditha Manvikar, emphasizing the need for willful and deliberate disobedience for such actions. The court reasoned that mere allegations, without substantial proof of violation of a court order, are insufficient to initiate contempt proceedings.
“Unless there is a deliberate and wilful violation of the Court orders, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated on mere allegation. As discussed above, absolutely, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the allegation of violation of Court order by the petitioner. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, initiation of contempt proceedings by the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law, wastage of valuable time of Court and there is deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to intimidate the respondent. The attempt/misadventure of this nature of the petitioner has to be curtailed to prevent misuse of process of law and also to deter the action of this nature.”
The dispute originated from a previous court order dated 23.11.2017, directing the respondent herein not to alienate a certain property. The petitioner herein alleged that respondent had violated this order, prompting him to file the contempt case.
The counsel on behalf of the respondent countered that Nayeem was merely a tenant who had falsely claimed ownership of the property. It was argued that the respondent had issued a legal notice to Nayeem, clarifying that he had no right to induct anyone into the property or create any third-party interest in it. She asserted that this notice was within her legal rights and did not constitute a violation of the court order.
Justice Alishetty relying on settled legal principles established in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others vs. State of Bihar and others and Asha Gupta vs. Sandeep Gupta and others, reiterated that contempt powers should only be exercised in cases of clear and willful disobedience. It stressed the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings, demanding a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court also emphasized the need for caution and circumspection in exercising contempt jurisdiction, as it is a special and rare power.
"...It is also settled principle that power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt.”
The court held that petitioner's actions amounted to an abuse of legal process and an attempt to intimidate the respondent. The court observed a deliberate lack of cause of action and a misuse of valuable court time. It further stated that such frivolous litigation needs to be discouraged to prevent misuse of legal mechanisms and hence imposed a fine of Rupees 25,000/-
Case Title: Mohammed Nayeem vs. Smt. Naveditha Manvikar
Case no.: CC 246 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: B.Rajeshwar Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: T.S.Praveen Kumar