Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition in Contempt Case — Statutory Right of Appeal Clarified. The court clarified that once an appeal is made to a Division Bench, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court is exhausted under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a contempt proceeding where the petitioners were committed to civil jail for one month by a Single Judge of the High Court for breaching an undertaking in a pending suit. The petitioners appealed to a Division Bench under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which dismissed their appeal. They subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that they had a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court despite the dismissal by the Division Bench. The court clarified that the statutory right of appeal is limited; once an appeal is made to a Division Bench, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court is exhausted. The court also upheld the Single Judge's findings of contempt, stating that the petitioners had indeed breached their undertaking, and thus the directions given by the Single Judge were appropriate. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Statutory Right of Appeal - Exhaustion of Right - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 19(1) - The court held that once an appeal against a Single Judge's order is made to a Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court is exhausted. The petitioners' claim of a further right of appeal was rejected as lacking substance (Paras 600B-C).

B) Contempt of Court - Breach of Undertaking - Appropriate Directions - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 19(1) - The court found that there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the petitioners, justifying the Single Judge's directions to address the breach. The petitioners' arguments against the directions were dismissed (Paras 600E).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a statutory right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court after an appeal to a Division Bench has been exhausted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the statutory right of appeal was exhausted after the Division Bench's dismissal and upheld the Single Judge's findings of contempt.

Law Points

  • Contempt of court
  • statutory right of appeal
  • breach of undertaking
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1984 LawText (SC) (08) 26

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9395 of 1984

1984-08-27

Chinnappa Reddy

1984 AIR 1826, 1985 SCR (1) 598, 1984 SCC (4) 216, 1984 SCALE (2) 213

R. N. Keshwani, R. Karenjawala

Mohammad Idris and Anr.

Rustam Jahangir Babuji and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Contempt proceedings against petitioners for breaching an undertaking.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to appeal the contempt order.

Filing Reason

Appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the Division Bench.

Previous Decisions

The appeal to the Division Bench was dismissed.

Issues

Statutory right of appeal after Division Bench dismissal Validity of Single Judge's directions

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1) Petitioners contended that the Single Judge's directions were unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court clarified that the statutory right of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is limited to one appeal to a Division Bench after which no further appeal lies to the Supreme Court.

Judgment Excerpts

If the order of committal for contempt of court is made by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges. There was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the petitioners.

Procedural History

The petitioners were committed to civil jail by a Single Judge for contempt, appealed to a Division Bench which dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 19(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Plaintiff in Railway Accident Damages Suit as Time-Barred. Notice Period Under Section 80 CPC Does Not Extend Limitation, and Filing in Wrong Court Cannot Be Saved by Sections 4 or 14 of Limitation Act, 1908.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Management's Petitions Challenging Interim Orders of School Tribunal in Employee's Appeal. Held that the School Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief and that the management cannot be permitted to circumvent th...