Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition for Lack of Prayer to Punish Contemnor. Failure to Seek Punishment for Contempt Renders Petition Not Maintainable Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 31
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Build Arch, a partnership firm, claimed ownership of a property and alleged that the respondents, being legal representatives of the original occupant, committed willful breach of an order passed by the Bombay High Court on 24.1.1986 in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 1984, which was based on consent terms. The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 251 of 1996 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court examined the petition and noted that civil contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, and Sections 11 and 12 confer jurisdiction and prescribe punishment. However, the court observed that the prayer clause in the petition contained nine sub-clauses but did not include any prayer to punish the respondents for contempt. The court held that on this ground alone, the contempt petition was liable to be rejected at the threshold, as the very purpose of contempt proceedings is to seek punishment for contempt. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without issuing notice to the respondents.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Maintainability of Petition - Necessity of Prayer for Punishment - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 2(b), 11, 12 - The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful breach of a court order but did not include any prayer to punish the respondents for contempt. The court held that the absence of a prayer to punish for contempt renders the petition liable to be rejected at the threshold, as the very purpose of contempt proceedings is to punish for contempt. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when it does not contain any prayer to punish the alleged contemnors for contempt of court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Contempt Petition No. 251 of 1996 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Civil contempt defined under Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act
  • 1971
  • High Court jurisdiction under Section 11
  • Punishment under Section 12
  • Necessity of specific prayer for punishment in contempt petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 185

Contempt Petition No. 251 of 1996

2005-02-10

B. H. Marlapalle, J.

Mr. S.K. Chinchalikar for petitioner, Ms. Anjali Helekar for respondents 2 & 3

M/s. Build Arch

Laxman Sawalaram Borade, Nandkumar Sawlaram Borade, Gokul Sawlaram Borade

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

Nature of Litigation

Contempt petition alleging willful breach of court order

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to punish respondents for contempt, but no specific prayer for punishment was included in the petition

Filing Reason

Alleged willful breach of order dated 24.1.1986 in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 1984

Previous Decisions

Order dated 24.1.1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 1984 based on consent terms

Issues

Whether a contempt petition is maintainable without a prayer to punish the alleged contemnors for contempt.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner alleged willful breach of court order by respondents. Respondents' counsel argued that the petition lacked a prayer for punishment.

Ratio Decidendi

A contempt petition must contain a specific prayer to punish the alleged contemnors for contempt; absence of such prayer renders the petition not maintainable and liable to be rejected at the threshold.

Judgment Excerpts

In the instant petition, there is no prayer set out for punishing the respondents-alleged contemnors for committing contempt of this Court. On this ground alone, this contempt petition was required to be rejected right at the threshold.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 251 of 1996 alleging willful breach of order dated 24.1.1986 in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 1984. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition at the threshold for lack of prayer to punish for contempt.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 2(b), 11, 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition for Lack of Prayer to Punish Contemnor. Failure to Seek Punishment for Contempt Renders Petition Not Maintainable Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal Challenging Order Quashing Resolution Permitting Withdrawal of Resignation. Resolution of Cooperative Society Allowing CEO to Withdraw Resignation Held Illegal Under Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.