Justice BR Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
When One Judge Has Held Litigant To Be Guilty Of Contempt, Another Judge Of Same Court Can’t Hold That No Case Of Contempt Was Made: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court whereby the contempt petition filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has observed that when one Judge of the same Court had taken a particular view holding a litigant to be guilty of contempt, it was not permissible for another Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether contempt was committed or not.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court whereby the contempt petition filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted, “In our considered opinion, apart from this being in excess of the jurisdiction, it is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial propriety. When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the Respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to a finding that the Respondent was not guilty of contempt.”
Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One company by the name of “RBT Private Ltd.” carried out the business of dyeing, printing and trading of fabrics. The Appellants had a combined shareholding of 51.36%,, Sanjay Arora (Respondent) had 25%, and Sumit Gupta had 23.64%. The MoU was entered into for the transfer of shareholding in the company and to reorganise the company’s management. Alleging that the Respondent had failed to discharge his obligation under the MoU, the Appellants issued a legal notice and later filed a petition in the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, praying for a direction to restrain the Respondent from disposing of/alienating the assets of the company. An Arbitrator was appointed who held that the apprehension of the Appellant was prima facie established.
A local Commissioner was also appointed. Aggrieved by the findings of the Local Commissioner and by the fact that the Respondent, till that point of time, had not deposited any amount of EMI in the loan account, the Appellants filed a Contempt Petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court held that the Respondent was guilty of intentionally violating orders and had committed contempt of the orders of the Court. He was granted 4 weeks for the Respondent to purge the contempt.
Thereafter, another Single Judge of the High Court, on change of roster, was seized of the contempt petition filed by the Appellants. The Single Judge then by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience by the Respondent of the order passed by the High Court and the arbitrator. The show cause notice issued to the Respondent was discharged. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the matter was postponed only to enable the Respondent either to purge the contempt or, in the event he did not purge the contempt, to file an affidavit showing cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. When the matter was listed before the another Single Judge of the High Court after the change of roster, again after considering the rival submissions, the Single Judge of the same Court vide impugned judgment held that no contempt case was made out.
“It is thus clear that the learned Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024 has reviewed the entire order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th December 2023. After the order was passed on 5th December 2023, another learned Single Judge could have only considered whether the Respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged the contempt, as to whether he should be punished or not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971” , it said. The Bench added, “It was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not.”
It was further observed that if the Respondent was of the view that the order passed by the Single Judge holding him to be guilty of contempt was not correct in law, the only option available to him was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. “Having accepted the order dated 5th December 2023, the Respondent could not have contended, or for that matter, the learned Single Judge could not have held that the Respondent has not committed contempt of the Court.”, it said.
Thus, quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench remitted the matter back to the Single Judge of the High Court for considering the issue from the stage of the passing of the order December 5, 2023.
Cause Title: Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora (Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.17013 of 2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate Rohan Jaitley, AOR Tanvir Nayar, Advocates Akshay Sharma, Bhuvnesh Sehgal, Dev Pratap Shahi
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri, AOR Vernika Tomar