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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more