Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pushpanjali Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing its notice of motion under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The notice of motion alleged that respondent No.3, C.D. Equisearch Pvt. Ltd., had committed contempt by transferring or confiscating shares that were the subject matter of the suit, in breach of an ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013. The ad-interim order had been passed in an earlier notice of motion, Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2150 of 2013, which was finally heard and dismissed by the learned single Judge on 05.02.2014. The appellant's appeal against that dismissal was also dismissed. The appellant contended that despite the dismissal of its notice of motion, it was entitled to reliefs because respondent No.3 had committed a breach of the ad-interim order. The court, however, found that there was no contempt by respondent No.3. The court upheld the impugned order dismissing the present notice of motion, primarily on the ground that respondent No.3 was, for all practical purposes, given no notice of the application for interim reliefs and, more importantly, had no knowledge of the ad-interim order. The court noted that the ad-interim order expressly required notice to be given, but it was not served on respondent No.3. Therefore, the transfer of shares by respondent No.3 could not be considered a contempt of court. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Breach of Ad-Interim Order - Knowledge of Order - The appellant alleged that respondent No.3 committed contempt by transferring shares in breach of an ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013. The court held that respondent No.3 had no knowledge of the ad-interim order as it was not served with the application or the order. Therefore, no contempt was committed. (Paras 1-2) B) Civil Procedure - Ad-Interim Order - Automatic Cessation - The ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013 was passed in a notice of motion that was subsequently dismissed on 05.02.2014. With the dismissal of the notice of motion, the ad-interim order automatically came to an end. The appellant's appeal against that dismissal was also dismissed. (Para 2(A))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer/confiscation of shares by respondent No.3 constituted contempt of court for breach of an ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013, when respondent No.3 had no knowledge of the said order.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned single Judge dismissing the notice of motion is upheld.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires knowledge of the order
- Breach of ad-interim order without knowledge is not contempt
- Notice of motion for contempt must be served properly
- Dismissal of main motion ends ad-interim order automatically
