Contempt Petition Cannot Be Withdrawn At Petitioner’s Mere Wish; Cannot Allow Its Use As A Tool Of Coercion: Bombay High Court
The High Court held that a contempt petition cannot be withdrawn solely at the will of the petitioner, as permitting such withdrawal would allow the contempt jurisdiction to be misused as a tool to coerce or pressurise the opposite party into a favourable action or settlement.
Justice M.M. Sathaye, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that contempt proceedings are not private disputes between litigating parties and cannot be withdrawn merely at the petitioner’s discretion. The Court observed that allowing withdrawal of contempt petitions based solely on private arrangements would undermine the sanctity of the contempt jurisdiction.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, modifying an eviction and compensation order under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The matter was heard by Justice M.M. Sathaye, who examined whether a second contempt petition alleging breach of the same order was maintainable after an earlier contempt petition had been withdrawn without liberty, and held: “…a contempt petition cannot be withdraw by mere wish of the Petitioner, …if such position is accepted then it will be a tool in the hands of the Petitioner to coerce and pressurize the Respondent party for a favourable action or agreement”.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vikram Deshmukh, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Amrut Joshi.
Background
The petitioner, a partnership firm, had granted certain premises to the respondent company on a leave and licence basis. Following disputes regarding payment of compensation and possession, proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, resulting in an order directing eviction and payment of arrears of compensation.
Though possession of the premises was eventually handed over, the compensation directed to be paid was not complied with. The order attained finality after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner thereafter initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent company and its former directors. During the pendency of the earlier contempt petition, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the proceedings based on an alleged private settlement. The contempt petition was disposed of accordingly, without reserving any liberty.
Subsequently, alleging non-compliance with the private settlement and continued disobedience of the original order, the petitioner filed a second contempt petition.
Court’s Observation
The Court first reiterated that “contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, and the fact that the Petitioner can execute the concerned order/decree, it will have no bearing on the contemptuous action”.
Examining the withdrawal of the earlier contempt petition, the Court held that the “petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that because it was promised payment of money within stipulated time, he did not press the contempt petition”, while stressing that “if such argument is accepted then it will amount to accepting that the contempt jurisdiction of this Court can be used as a tool to coerce and pressurize the opposite party into certain actions or agreements. Such a situation, the Court held, “cannot be countenanced”.
The Court noted that the alleged settlement relied upon by the petitioner was never adjudicated upon, and the record indicated that it had not crystallised into a concluded agreement. Disputed questions regarding such private arrangements, the Court held, could not be examined in contempt jurisdiction.
The High Court further observed that once the earlier contempt petition was withdrawn and disposed of, and the bail bonds of the respondent were discharged, the matter stood concluded on merits in the peculiar facts of the case. Entertaining a second contempt petition for the same alleged breach would amount to misuse of the contempt jurisdiction.
On the issue of limitation, the Court held that the second contempt petition was filed well beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The pendency of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal did not extend the limitation, as neither forum had jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings.
“Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not be attracted to the facts and circumstances narrated above, because ex facie, neither NCLT nor NCLAT are the Courts where a contempt petition can be initiated, where the Petitioner can be said to be bona fide prosecuting a remedy without jurisdiction”, the Bench further remarked.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator despite liberty being granted, reinforcing the conclusion that contempt jurisdiction was being invoked as a pressure mechanism rather than for upholding the authority of the Court.
Conclusion
Considering the fact that the Petitioner requested the withdrawal of the earlier contempt petition on the alleged private agreement (out of Court) for payment of money, the Bombay High Court concluded that “the Petitioner is using the contempt jurisdiction of this Court as a tool to pressurise the Respondents, when the petitioner can adopt appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of compensation”.
Finding no grounds to exercise contempt jurisdiction, and holding the second contempt petition to be barred by limitation and misuse of process, the Court dismissed the contempt petition.
Cause Title: Thakurdas Khinvraj Rathi v. Official Liquidator, Cals Refineries Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:1677)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Vikram Deshmukh, Sana Khan, Arundhati Korale
Respondents: Advocates Amrut Joshi, Faiza Dhanani, Yazad Udwadia