Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 23-09-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, sentencing the appellant to civil imprisonment for one month for willful disobedience of an injunction order. The order was passed in Notice of Motion No.331 of 1996 in Suit No.1179 of 1994. The appellant, M/s. Ralhan Developers, a sole proprietary concern of Pramod Kumar Rajkumar Ralhan, was the defendant in the suit. The respondent, Goyal Properties & Estates (Pvt.) Ltd., had obtained an injunction order against the appellant. The learned Single Judge, relying on the consent of advocates that the facts and law were similar to Notice of Motion No.330 of 1996, passed the impugned order. The appellant contended that the order was passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing. The court noted that the appeal in the connected matter (Appeal No.14 of 2004) had abated due to the death of the appellant therein. The court held that the order of civil imprisonment could not be sustained as the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to show cause before the order was passed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Imprisonment - Willful Disobedience of Injunction - The appellant was sentenced to one month civil imprisonment for alleged willful disobedience of an injunction order passed by the High Court. The order was passed in Notice of Motion No.331 of 1996, relying on a similar order in Notice of Motion No.330 of 1996. The court held that the order could not be sustained as the appellant was not given proper notice and opportunity of hearing before the order of civil imprisonment was passed. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Notice of Motion - Opportunity of Hearing - The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order based on the consent of advocates that facts and law were similar to another notice of motion. However, the appellate court found that the order of civil imprisonment was passed without affording the appellant a proper opportunity to show cause, rendering the order unsustainable. (Paras 1-3) C) Contempt of Court - Abatement of Appeal - The appeal filed by the alleged contemnor in Notice of Motion No.330 of 1996 (Appeal No.14 of 2004) abated due to his death. The present appeal was required to be decided on its own merits, and the court set aside the order of civil imprisonment. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order sentencing the appellant to civil imprisonment for willful disobedience of an injunction order was sustainable in law, given that the order was passed in a notice of motion without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-09-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.331 of 1996 is set aside.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- civil imprisonment
- willful disobedience
- injunction order
- notice of motion
- opportunity of hearing
- abatement of appeal
- vicarious liability
