Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a contempt petition filed by M/s. Abhijit Tea Co. (P) Ltd. alleging non-compliance with an order of the Supreme Court directing refund of a court deposit. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, by order dated 25.4.1994 in Appeal No. 514 of 1992, had directed the Registrar (Original Side) to refund Rs.19,33,873.74 to the petitioner from the amount held in court deposit. A review application was filed; one member of the Bench had retired, and the remaining Single Judge, Shyamal Kumar Sen, J., by order dated 21.7.1994 rejected the review but directed the Registrar to hold the money for one more week. The petitioner challenged that direction in this Court through Special Leave Petition (C) No.9575 of 1994. This Court, by order dated 16.8.1994, set aside the direction to hold money, making the refund payable. Despite communications dated 22.8.1994, 24.8.1994, 2.9.1994, and 5.9.1994, the Registrar did not disburse the amount. On 2.9.1994, the Single Judge vacated the earlier order withholding payment, but on 16.9.1994, after hearing the review application, the same Judge directed the Registrar not to make payment for a period of fortnight. The petitioner then approached this Court on 23.9.1994 seeking contempt action against the Registrar and the respondents for not complying with the order dated 16.8.1994. In his counter affidavit, the Registrar relied on Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV and Rule 51A of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, contending that a series of procedural steps involving State Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India had to be completed before a cheque could be issued, and that he had taken steps from 6.9.1994 onwards. However, this Court found that State Bank of India had intimated the Registrar on 7.9.1994 that Rs.24,41,821.74 had been credited to his deposit account and the amount was transferred to his personal account with Reserve Bank of India on 8.9.1994, yet no step was taken to expedite refund from 8.9.1994 to 14.9.1994. The Court held that the Registrar had no justifiable reason for failing to give effect to the order of this Court dated 16.8.1994 and was absolutely careless and indifferent. It observed that the Registrar appeared to have thought that delay was a safe route, forsaking his constitutional duty under Article 142 as an arm of the court. The Court strongly condemned the Registrar's conduct, directed that it be entered in his confidential character rolls, and asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to look into his conduct for appropriate action. Since the Single Judge had finally decided the review application on 23.12.1994 setting aside the Division Bench order, and an appeal against that order was pending, this Court, instead of relegating the parties to seek directions in that appeal, directed the petitioner to withdraw the amount on furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court, Calcutta, with the withdrawal subject to the result in the appeal. The contempt application was accordingly disposed of.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Order - Article 142, Constitution of India, 1950 - Court officer's constitutional duty to implement Supreme Court orders - Registrar failed to refund court deposit despite Supreme Court order dated 16.8.1994 and his own High Court order vacating stay; no justifiable reason existed; Court held conduct careless and indifferent, condemned it, and directed entry in confidential character rolls - Held that non-implementation of Supreme Court order warrants strong condemnation and departmental scrutiny (Paras 4-7). B) Judicial Discipline - High Court Order Contrary to Supreme Court Order - Single Judge's order dated 16.9.1994 withholding payment for fortnight after earlier vacating order and Supreme Court order - Court observed that what persuaded the learned Judge to pass the later order was not clear and no justification was discernible (Para 3). C) Court Officers' Duties - Compliance with Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules - Rule 3A Chapter XXIV and Rule 51A - Registrar contended procedural steps caused delay; Court found from 8.9.1994 to 14.9.1994 no steps were taken to expedite refund; procedural rules cannot justify indifference (Paras 5-7). D) Interim Relief - Withdrawal of Court Deposit Pending Appeal - Bank Guarantee - Since appeal against Single Judge's order dated 23.12.1994 setting aside refund was pending, Supreme Court directed petitioner to withdraw amount on furnishing bank guarantee to satisfaction of Registrar, subject to result of appeal (Para 8). E) Contempt Jurisdiction - Avoidance of Court Orders - Court's arm long enough to reach injustice - No one can avoid non-implementation by manoeuvre; court emphasized need to deal appropriately with non-implementation of court orders (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar of the Calcutta High Court and the respondents committed contempt by failing to comply with the Supreme Court order dated 16.8.1994 directing refund of the court deposit; whether the Registrar's procedural explanations justified the delay; whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the deposited amount pending the appeal against the review order.
Final Decision
Supreme Court condemned Registrar's conduct as careless and indifferent; directed that this finding be entered in his confidential character rolls and requested the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to look into his conduct for appropriate action; directed petitioner to withdraw the amount on furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of Registrar of High Court, Calcutta, withdrawal subject to result in appeal against order of learned Single Judge dated 23.12.1994; contempt application disposed of.
Law Points
- Registrar of High Court is duty-bound under Article 142 of Constitution of India to effectuate Supreme Court orders
- Delay in implementing court orders is reprehensible and calls for strong condemnation
- Procedural rules cannot justify indifference or inaction by court officers
- Court can permit withdrawal of deposited amount against bank guarantee pending appeal
- Contempt jurisdiction ensures that no one can avoid non-implementation of court orders by manoeuvre
