Case Note & Summary
The contempt appeal arose from an order dated 30.3.2001 passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2000, finding the appellant guilty of contempt of court. The appellant was alleged to have wilfully disobeyed the order dated 2nd May 1991 passed in B.C.C. Suit No. 1843 of 1981, which had recorded consent terms between the parties. The consent terms required the appellant to pay royalty at a certain rate and to cooperate with the court receiver. The appellant failed to pay enhanced royalty from 1st April 2000 and obstructed the receiver. The Single Judge directed the appellant to deposit a fine of Rs.30,000, out of which Rs.15,000 was to be withdrawn by the petitioner, and to pay royalty at an enhanced rate of Rs.16,000 per month from 1st April 2000. The Division Bench, after hearing the appellant, upheld the finding of contempt and the directions, dismissing the appeal. The court held that the appellant's conduct constituted wilful disobedience of the court order, warranting the punishment imposed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Consent Terms - The appellant was found guilty of contempt for violating consent terms recorded in a suit, by failing to pay enhanced royalty and obstructing the court receiver. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order imposing a fine of Rs.30,000 and directing payment of enhanced royalty at Rs.16,000 per month from 1st April 2000. Held that the appellant's conduct amounted to wilful disobedience of the court order (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 2nd May 1991 passed in B.C.C. Suit No. 1843 of 1981.
Final Decision
The contempt appeal is dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dated 30.3.2001 finding the appellant guilty of contempt and directing deposit of fine of Rs.30,000 and payment of enhanced royalty at Rs.16,000 per month from 1st April 2000 is upheld.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- wilful disobedience
- consent terms
- court receiver
- enhanced royalty
- fine
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 33
Contempt Petition No. 10 of 2001 in Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2000 in B.C.C. Suit No. 1843 of 1981
Girish S. Godbole i/b Mr. Manoj B. Dalvi for the appellant
R. Y. Raghu Rao, G.S. Bhatty, S.S. Bhatty, The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt appeal against order finding appellant guilty of contempt of court for violating consent terms in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 30.3.2001 finding him guilty of contempt and imposing fine and enhanced royalty.
Filing Reason
Appellant was alleged to have wilfully disobeyed the order dated 2nd May 1991 passed in B.C.C. Suit No. 1843 of 1981.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2000 found appellant guilty of contempt and directed deposit of fine of Rs.30,000 and payment of enhanced royalty at Rs.16,000 per month from 1st April 2000.
Issues
Whether the appellant committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 2nd May 1991.
Ratio Decidendi
Wilful disobedience of a court order, especially one recording consent terms, constitutes contempt of court. The court has the power to impose fine and direct enhanced payments to ensure compliance and uphold the dignity of the court.
Judgment Excerpts
This contempt appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2000 finding the appellant guilty of contempt.
The contemnor is found guilty of contempt. He is directed to deposit a fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) in this Court within four weeks, and out of this amount Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Balance will remain deposit in the court. The contemnor will pay royalty at enhanced rate from 1st April 2000 at the rate of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.Sixteen thousand only) per month.
Procedural History
The appellant was found guilty of contempt by a Single Judge on 30.3.2001 in Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2000. The appellant filed Contempt Petition No. 10 of 2001 against that order. The Division Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it on 18.1.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
