Bombay High Court Upholds Contempt Order Against Appellant for Willful Disobedience of Injunction in Property Suit. Civil imprisonment of two months confirmed for violating ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 198
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Appellant, Ramchandra Bihari Yadav, was the defendant in S.C. Suit No. 1379 of 1991 filed by the Respondent, The Zoroastrial Radih Society. On 28th February 1992, the trial court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from interfering with the Respondent's possession of the suit property. Despite being served with the injunction order, the Appellant willfully disobeyed it by continuing to interfere. Consequently, the Respondent filed Contempt Notice of Motion No. 2425 of 1992. The trial court made the notice absolute on 26th November 1996, directing the Appellant to be detained in civil prison for two months. The Appellant challenged this order under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court heard the appeal ex parte as the Respondent was served but did not appear. The court examined the record and found that the Appellant had clear knowledge of the injunction and his actions constituted willful disobedience. The court held that the trial court's order was justified and the sentence of two months' imprisonment was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the contempt order.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience of Injunction - Section 104, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 CPC - The Appellant was restrained by an ad-interim injunction from interfering with the Respondent's possession. Despite service, the Appellant continued to interfere, leading to a contempt notice. The trial court made the notice absolute and sentenced the Appellant to two months' civil imprisonment. The High Court upheld the order, finding the disobedience willful and the sentence proportionate. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant's disobedience of the ad-interim injunction was willful and whether the contempt notice was rightly made absolute.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The order of the trial court making the contempt notice absolute and sentencing the Appellant to two months' civil imprisonment is upheld.

Law Points

  • Contempt of court
  • willful disobedience
  • injunction
  • civil imprisonment
  • Order 39 Rule 1 CPC
  • Section 104 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 27

Appeal from Order No.1104 of 1998

2005-01-11

Abhay S. Oka

Shri R.A.Thorat for the Appellant

Ramchandra Bihari Yadav

The Zoroastrial Radih Society

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal from order making contempt notice absolute in a civil suit for injunction.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order of civil imprisonment for contempt.

Filing Reason

Appellant was held in contempt for willful disobedience of an ad-interim injunction granted in favor of the Respondent.

Previous Decisions

Trial court made Contempt Notice of Motion No.2425 of 1992 absolute on 26th November 1996, directing Appellant's detention in civil prison for two months.

Issues

Whether the Appellant's disobedience of the ad-interim injunction was willful.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the order of contempt was not justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Willful disobedience of a court's injunction order constitutes contempt of court, and civil imprisonment is a proportionate punishment for such disobedience.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant was directed to be detained in the Civil Prison for a period of two months. The Appellant is the Defendant in S.C.Suit No. 1379 of 1991.

Procedural History

On 28th February 1992, ad-interim injunction granted in favor of Respondent. Contempt Notice of Motion No.2425 of 1992 filed by Respondent. On 26th November 1996, trial court made notice absolute and sentenced Appellant to two months' civil imprisonment. Appellant filed Appeal from Order No.1104 of 1998 under Section 104 CPC. High Court heard appeal on 11th January 2005 and dismissed it.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 104, Order 39 Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Seven Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Contempt Order Against Appellant for Willful Disobedience of Injunction in Property Suit. Civil imprisonment of two months confirmed for violating ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.