Skip to main content

'Civil Contempt' must be a willful one, a proof of sheer/mere disobedience is not enough

In A. Elangovan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Palaviduthi Police Station and Ors, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Contempt Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to punish the Respondents for the act of Contempt in not obeying the orders passed by this Court.

The High Court of Madras held that it cannot be gainsaid that, the Contempt jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court not only to preserve or maintain the Majesty of Law by taking necessary action against persons, who violates the Court's order, but to see that the 'Court of Justice' is pure. Furthermore, even an 'Abuse of Process of Court' would amount to Contempt of Court. As a matter of fact, a Civil Contempt pertains to an order of 'Court of Law' affecting the rights of other parties to that order. 

It is to be noted that, the disobedience of orders of Court in order to be a 'Civil Contempt' must be a willful one, a proof of sheer/mere disobedience is not enough. For an effective administration of Justice, the Court 'Exercising' of Contempt jurisdiction is essential concerned with the issue of 'Contumacious' conduct of a person, who is purported to have committed a default in complying with the directions of the order or Judgment. 

As a Court of Law, when it deals with an application for Contempt, it cannot go beyond the order, non-compliance, which was alleged, there ought to be a clear cut case of obstruction of administration of Justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of Contempt. It cannot be forgotten that a 'Civil Contempt is less grave than a Criminal Contempt'. Indeed, the case should not rest on surmises and conjectures. 

In order to sustain an action for Contempt in respect of a violation of an order, it is not necessary that the order must have been served on the party against whom it is ordered, if it is established that he had noticed the order. However, the burden is on the person, who claims that the individual against whom action is allegedly taken, has very much knowledge of the order. But if there is a genuine doubt, then the same will go in favour of the person, who is facing the Contempt. 

In Law, an affected person has no right to insist that, a Court of Law should exercise such jurisdiction, because of the reason that 'Contempt' is between the contemnor and the Court. The proceedings, under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) are for maintaining 'Public Peace and Tranquility'. In fact, the proceedings under Section 107 of CrPC. are not punitive in character. That apart, the ingredients of Sections 107 to 109 of CrPC. are there to maintain public peace and to prevent a wrongful act that may cause a breach of peace or disturb the public peace, as the case may be.

Section 107 of CrPC visualises that when an individual is likely to commit breach of peace or disturbed the public tranquility by a direct act and further when the person may be the indirect reason for the cause of the breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility by indulging in a wrongful act, an Executive Magistrate may take action, as he deems fit and proper, after applying his thinking judicial mind and should not pass a mechanical order just because he had received a 'Report from the Police'. 

The Magistrate can prepare the proceedings on the basis of 'Police Report or Other Information' which ought to be clear so as to offer notice to the persons proceeded against. Under Section 107 of CrPC, an enquiry will commence based upon the nature of show cause furnished by the concerned party. To ascertain the truth of information, an enquiry is commenced by the Magistrate and the enquiry mentioned in Section 116 of CrPC is in the character of trial in summary cases. No wonder, Section 116 of CrPC is to be read along with Section 254 of CrPC. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more