Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its director, filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court against U.P.F.C. through its Managing Director and others. The petitioner contended that despite specific guidelines laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, (1993) 2 SCC 279, regarding the sale of properties of defaulters by financial corporations, the respondents had not sold the petitioner's property consistent with those guidelines. The petitioner argued that this failure amounted to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court, thereby rendering the respondents liable for conviction for contempt of court. The core legal issue before the Court was whether infraction of a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution by a previous judgment of the Supreme Court could be the subject matter of contempt proceedings. The petitioner sought issuance of notice to the respondents and their conviction for contempt. The Court observed that the law laid down in Mahesh Chandra's case is the law under Article 141, which is binding on everyone. However, the Court held that if there is any infraction or violation of the law laid down by this Court, the appropriate remedy is to have it corrected through judicial review, not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court. The Court stated that it could not accede to the request to issue notice and convict the respondents for contempt. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was left free to seek appropriate remedy according to law. The decision emphasizes that while Supreme Court judgments are binding, non-compliance with the guidelines laid down therein does not automatically constitute contempt of court. Instead, the aggrieved party must resort to judicial review or other legal remedies for correction of any infraction.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Violation of law laid down by Supreme Court under Article 141 - Constitution of India, Article 141 - The petitioner alleged that respondents failed to follow guidelines in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, thereby committing wilful disobedience. The Court held that infraction of law declared under Article 141 must be corrected through judicial review, not contempt proceedings. Held that contempt petition dismissed; petitioner may seek appropriate remedy according to law (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether violation of guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC amounts to wilful disobedience and contempt of court.
Final Decision
The contempt petition was dismissed. The Court held that violation of law laid down under Article 141 should be corrected by judicial review, not contempt proceedings. The petitioner was left free to seek appropriate remedy according to law.
Law Points
- Article 141 binding law
- infraction of law to be corrected by judicial review
- contempt not appropriate for violation of guidelines
