Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 27/2025
in
C.A. No. 76/2023
M/S KHURANA BROTHERS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This contempt petition alleges willful
disobedience of this Court’s order dated
04.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 76/2023.
3. A perusal of the record would reveal that
Civil Appeal No.76 of 2023 was filed against an
order of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad passed in an intra
court appeal against an order of Single Judge
of the High Court. Though the intra court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2025.10.16
10:46:24 IST
Reason:
appeal was dismissed, certain observations were
there which, according to the petitioner, made
petitioner’s position worse than what it was
after the order of Single Judge. Therefore, the
same was challenged before this Court by
seeking leave to appeal. Though this Court
granted leave to appeal, the learned counsel
for the appellant instead of pressing the
appeal on merits made a statement that he may
be permitted to withdraw the intra court appeal
that was filed before the Division Bench of the
High Court so that his position as obtaining
under the order of the Single Judge of the High
Court is restored. This prayer was accepted by
this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023, and the
appeal was disposed of by observing that the
intra court appeal preferred before the
Division Bench of the High Court shall stand
withdrawn and parties shall work out their
respective rights in terms of the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4. Now, this contempt petition is filed
alleging that the contemnor respondents have
not complied the order of the Single Judge of
the High Court as restored by this Court’s
order dated 04.01.2023.
5. On the last date, when this matter was taken
up, we had passed an order requesting the
counsel for the petitioner to address the Court
as to why this contempt petition be not
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner
to initiate such proceedings, if required,
before the High Court as the order of which
violation is alleged is of the Single Judge of
the High Court consequent to the withdrawal of
the intra-court appeal.
6. In response to the last order, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
order of this Court dated 4.1.2023 was passed
after grant of leave, the doctrine of merger
would apply and, therefore, the contempt would
lie before this Court.
7. The aforesaid submission may appear
attractive but in the facts of the present case
is not acceptable. Reason being the doctrine of
merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal
application and it cannot be said that wherever
there are two orders, one by inferior court or
tribunal and the other by superior court or
tribunal, passed in an appeal or revision,
there is fusion or merger of two orders
irrespective of the subject matter of the
appellate or revisional order and the scope of
appeal or revision contemplated by the
particular statute. In State of Madras v.
Madurai Mills co. Ltd., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 140
(equivalent to AIR 1967 SC 681) , a three-Judge
Bench of this Court held that application of
the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of
the appellate or revisional order in each case
and the scope of the statutory provisions
conferring the appellate or revisional
jurisdiction.
8. In the case on hand, this Court had allowed
the petitioner to withdraw the intra court
appeal in which the order under challenge in
appeal before this Court was passed. As a
result, once the appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court stood withdrawn so did
all orders passed therein. Once that is the
position, by fiction of law the parties would
stand relegated to the stage at which they
were on the date of filing of the intra court
appeal. In such circumstances, the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court would
operate from the date of this Court’s order as
if it had never been challenged.
9. In our view, therefore, contempt, if any,
would lie before the High Court. We,
accordingly, deem it appropriate to dispose of
this contempt petition by giving liberty to the
petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings
before the High Court if the order of the
Single Judge of the High Court has been
violated, as is alleged.
10. Contempt petition and all pending
application shall stand disposed of. It is
made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter before us.
…………………………………………………………..….J
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………………………………………………………..….J
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
New Delhi
October 14, 2025
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.15 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 27/2025 in C.A. No. 76/2023
M/S KHURANA BROTHERS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 80994/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 80996/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 80029/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 14-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Vardhan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, AOR
Mr. Adarsh Pratap, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Bist, Adv.
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Contempt petition and all pending application
shall stand disposed of in terms of the signed order
which is placed on the file.
(CHETAN ARORA) (CHETNA BALOONI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 27/2025
in
C.A. No. 76/2023
M/S KHURANA BROTHERS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This contempt petition alleges willful
disobedience of this Court’s order dated
04.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 76/2023.
3. A perusal of the record would reveal that
Civil Appeal No.76 of 2023 was filed against an
order of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad passed in an intra
court appeal against an order of Single Judge
of the High Court. Though the intra court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2025.10.16
10:46:24 IST
Reason:
appeal was dismissed, certain observations were
there which, according to the petitioner, made
petitioner’s position worse than what it was
after the order of Single Judge. Therefore, the
same was challenged before this Court by
seeking leave to appeal. Though this Court
granted leave to appeal, the learned counsel
for the appellant instead of pressing the
appeal on merits made a statement that he may
be permitted to withdraw the intra court appeal
that was filed before the Division Bench of the
High Court so that his position as obtaining
under the order of the Single Judge of the High
Court is restored. This prayer was accepted by
this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023, and the
appeal was disposed of by observing that the
intra court appeal preferred before the
Division Bench of the High Court shall stand
withdrawn and parties shall work out their
respective rights in terms of the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4. Now, this contempt petition is filed
alleging that the contemnor respondents have
not complied the order of the Single Judge of
the High Court as restored by this Court’s
order dated 04.01.2023.
5. On the last date, when this matter was taken
up, we had passed an order requesting the
counsel for the petitioner to address the Court
as to why this contempt petition be not
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner
to initiate such proceedings, if required,
before the High Court as the order of which
violation is alleged is of the Single Judge of
the High Court consequent to the withdrawal of
the intra-court appeal.
6. In response to the last order, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
order of this Court dated 4.1.2023 was passed
after grant of leave, the doctrine of merger
would apply and, therefore, the contempt would
lie before this Court.
7. The aforesaid submission may appear
attractive but in the facts of the present case
is not acceptable. Reason being the doctrine of
merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal
application and it cannot be said that wherever
there are two orders, one by inferior court or
tribunal and the other by superior court or
tribunal, passed in an appeal or revision,
there is fusion or merger of two orders
irrespective of the subject matter of the
appellate or revisional order and the scope of
appeal or revision contemplated by the
particular statute. In State of Madras v.
Madurai Mills co. Ltd., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 140
(equivalent to AIR 1967 SC 681) , a three-Judge
Bench of this Court held that application of
the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of
the appellate or revisional order in each case
and the scope of the statutory provisions
conferring the appellate or revisional
jurisdiction.
8. In the case on hand, this Court had allowed
the petitioner to withdraw the intra court
appeal in which the order under challenge in
appeal before this Court was passed. As a
result, once the appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court stood withdrawn so did
all orders passed therein. Once that is the
position, by fiction of law the parties would
stand relegated to the stage at which they
were on the date of filing of the intra court
appeal. In such circumstances, the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court would
operate from the date of this Court’s order as
if it had never been challenged.
9. In our view, therefore, contempt, if any,
would lie before the High Court. We,
accordingly, deem it appropriate to dispose of
this contempt petition by giving liberty to the
petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings
before the High Court if the order of the
Single Judge of the High Court has been
violated, as is alleged.
10. Contempt petition and all pending
application shall stand disposed of. It is
made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter before us.
…………………………………………………………..….J
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………………………………………………………..….J
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
New Delhi
October 14, 2025
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.15 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 27/2025 in C.A. No. 76/2023
M/S KHURANA BROTHERS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 80994/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 80996/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 80029/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 14-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Vardhan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, AOR
Mr. Adarsh Pratap, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Bist, Adv.
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Contempt petition and all pending application
shall stand disposed of in terms of the signed order
which is placed on the file.
(CHETAN ARORA) (CHETNA BALOONI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)