Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 925
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._______OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10098 of 2023]
DEEPAK KUMAR AND ANOTHER …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEVINA TEWARI AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India (ASG) appearing on behalf of the
appellants and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for contesting respondent/Respondent No.1.
3. Learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that as a matter of fact, the Special Appeal Defective
being No. 197 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 before the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.03
18:36:27 IST
Reason:
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
1
th
the High Court dated 5 January 2022 in Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 2609 of 2015 preferred by respondent
No.1, itself was not tenable. It is submitted that by the said
order, the learned Single Judge had held that the appellants
have not committed contempt of the order of the learned
nd
Single Judge passed on 22 April 2015, and therefore in
view of the decision of this Court in the case of Midnapore
Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda
1
and Others , the appeal was not tenable.
4. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for contesting respondent/Respondent No.1,
submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
while deciding the contempt application has gone into the
merits of the matter and therefore in view of paragraph 11,
clause V of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
Bank Ltd. and Others (supra), the appeal was very much
tenable.
5. This Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
Bank Ltd. and Others (supra) has observed thus:-
“ 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in
regard to appeals against orders in contempt
1
(2006) 5 SCC 399 : 2006 INSC 367
2
proceedings may be summarized thus :
I. An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate
proceedings for contempt, nor an order
initiating proceedings for contempt nor an
order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High
Court can decide whether any contempt
of court has been committed, and if so,
what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made
by the High Court on the merits of a
dispute between the parties, will not be in
the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for
contempt' and therefore, not appealable
under section 19 of CC Act. The only
exception is where such direction or
decision is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, in which event the appeal
under section 19 of the Act, can also
encompass the incidental or inextricably
connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever
3
reason, decides an issue or makes any
direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, in a
contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intra-
court appeal (if the order was of a learned
Single Judge and there is a provision for
an intra-court appeal), or by seeking
special leave to appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution of India (in other
cases).”
6. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge it is clear to us that by the said order the
learned Single Judge had in unequivocal terms held that no
case for contempt was made out of the judgment and order
nd
dated 22 April 2015 and as such dismissed the said
contempt application preferred by respondent No.1. As such,
in view of clause II of paragraph 11 of the judgment of this
Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others
(supra), the appeal itself was not tenable.
7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/employee on Clause V, in our view, is not
well pressed. There is no adjudication or direction with
regard to the merits of the matter by the learned Single
th
Judge in the order dated 5 January 2022. In any case, in
4
view of a specific bar, the remedy available to Respondent
No.1, if any, was to challenge the order of the learned Single
Judge by way of special leave petition.
8.
On this short ground, we are inclined to allow the
appeal. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and
the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/employee before the
Division Bench of the High Court stands dismissed. Ordered
accordingly.
9. In the event Respondent No.1 files special leave petition
before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single
th
Judge dated 5 January 2022, she would be entitled to
benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the
period during which the proceedings were pending before the
Division Bench of the High Court and before this Court.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…..............................J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2024.
5