Suppression of material facts justifies contempt dismissal, but excessive costs may be proportionately reduced.

The appellant, a government contractor who had executed civil works for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), alleged that its outstanding bills and security deposit had been withheld. In CWP No. 3161 of 2023, the High Court directed the Project Director, NHAI, to consider and decide the appellant’s legal notice within three months.

Alleging non-compliance, the appellant filed an earlier contempt petition, COCP No. 1884 of 2023. During its pendency, the respondents produced a communication dated 27.06.2024, following which the petition was disposed of on 12.05.2025. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second contempt petition, COCP No. 747 of 2026, without disclosing the earlier proceedings or their outcome. The learned Single Judge dismissed the second contempt petition and imposed costs of ₹3 lakhs, payable equally to the respondents. The appellant challenged the order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but confined the appeal to reduction of costs.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the second contempt petition after finding that the appellant had suppressed the earlier contempt proceedings and their outcome.

Whether the imposition of costs of ₹3 lakhs was excessive and required modification in the circumstances of the case.

The Court applied Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, governing appeals from contempt orders, and considered the contempt jurisdiction arising under Section 12 of the Act.

It reaffirmed the principle that a litigant filing a contempt petition supported by affidavit must candidly disclose all relevant and material facts, including prior proceedings concerning the same subject matter. Suppression of such facts may justify dismissal of the contempt petition and imposition of costs. At the same time, the quantum of costs must remain proportionate to the nature of the lapse and the surrounding circumstances. The Court also considered the Division Bench decisions in Murari Lal Sharma v. Arun Kumar Gupta and others and Gram Panchayat Village Nangal Jattan v. Kap Sinha, Chief Secretary and others while assessing the appropriate costs.

The Court held that the appellant had failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the earlier contempt petition and its disposal, despite filing the subsequent petition on affidavit. This omission constituted a breach of the appellant’s duty of candour and justified dismissal of the second contempt petition; consequently, the Court declined to interfere with that substantive part of the Single Judge’s order.

However, the Court distinguished the validity of imposing costs from their quantum. It accepted that the omission could have been inadvertent and that the appellant was possibly under financial strain. In light of these mitigating circumstances, the Court found the costs of ₹3 lakhs to be on the higher side and reduced them by half.

The reduced amount was directed to be divided equally among the three respondents, with ₹50,000 payable to each, and deposited directly into their respective bank accounts after the respondents furnished the account details to the appellant.