The Kerala High Court has held that that civil contempt jurisdiction is meant to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and maintain its dignity and cannot be executed to supplement or modify earlier judicial decisions.

The Court was considering a Writ-Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act challenging the order passed by Single Judge in a Contempt Case arising out of Writ-Petition filed by Respondent for quashing Exts. P4, P4(a) and P4(b) so far as they are limited to the benefits of full price variation.

The division-bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed, ".....the legal position is settled that civil contempt jurisdiction is meant to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and maintain the dignity of the Court. This jurisdiction is not be executed to supplement or modify earlier judicial decisions. In contempt jurisdiction Courts have to limit the determination to whether there has been willful disobedience to a self-evident order. It is not permissible to travel beyond the original judgment or enter into issues that were not previously adjudicated. Directions that are not contained in the judgment cannot be enforced through contempt proceedings. If an order is ambiguous, seeking clarification through review or appeal is the appropriate remedy. Thus, if a substantive relief that alters the original order or a new order is executed in civil contempt, proceedings will be beyond jurisdiction."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Joseph Jose while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Philip T. Varghese.

Facts of the Case

Raphael and Company had entered into a contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board (the Board) in 2005-2006 for a period of five years to supply PSC poles. One of the Clauses in the contract was regarding price variation, stating that if there is a variation of 10% in the cost of components, the benefit of the price variation would be given to the contractor. The Board had taken a stand that the price variation would apply prospectively from a particular date. The same was challenged by the Company by way of a writ petition. The Single Judge recorded that the only issue in the writ petition was regarding the claim for price variation for the period from the date of commencement of the contract till September 2008. By judgment dated 27 October 2017, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to give effect to Clause 14 up to the period of September 2008. The Single Judge also directed that the Board has to give effect to Clause 14 for a further period covering up to September 2008. Then the Contempt Petition was filed by the Company making a grievance that though the certified copy of the judgment dated 27 October 2017 was produced before the Board on or around 18 December 2017, the Board did not implement the judgment and also the reminders were ignored. The Petitioner Company contended that the non-compliance of the judgment by the Board amounts to willful disobedience and deliberate defiance of the judgment, which is liable to be punished under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Board filed a reply affidavit contending that the only direction given in the judgment dated 27 October 2017 was to give effect to Clause 14 of the contract up to September 2008, and no other directions were issued. The Board contended that the order passed on 27 October 2017 has already been complied with by virtue of an order passed by the Secretary of the Board on 25 May 2020. In the Contempt Petition, the Single Judge passed an order on 10 January 2024, making certain observations and granting further time. Then again, on 13 March 2024, the Single Judge passed another order directing the Appellant Board to calculate the balance price variation. On 15 January 2025, the Single Judge passed a detailed order reiterating the earlier facts and noting that various orders are passed in the Contempt petition. The Single Judge observed that there is no dispute to the fact that from 2008 onwards, the price variation was given inclusive of 10%, and in view of Clause 14, the Board cannot take a stand that the price variation is not based on any difference above 10%. He referred to the fact that the Court had decided the matter after referring to the Board's decision and ordered that such price variation should be given from the date of inception. Reference was also made to an order dated 13 March 2024 passed in the Contempt Petition directing the Board to calculate the amount from the inception of the contract itself. Thereafter, reference was made to the statement filed on 3 July 2024, and a direction was issued to pay the price variation of ₹64,42,821/-. The Single Judge observed that this having not been paid, the same should be paid within one month, failing which, it will carry interest, and the hearing of the Contempt Petition was adjourned. Being aggrieved, the Board filed the present Appeal.

Counsel for the Board contended that the orders passed in the contempt petition leading to the impugned order are beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction where fresh adjudication cannot be made. It was submitted that the order passed by the Board has not been challenged, and new adjudication cannot be made in the contempt jurisdiction. Counsel for the Company submitted that there is no fresh adjudication, and the Single Judge passed the order only to grant indulgence from time to time to comply with the order dated 27 October 2017.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the law regarding the ambit of civil contempt jurisdiction in the context of passing new orders is settled.

"The contempt jurisdiction is vested with the Court to uphold its majesty and dignity. It is a special jurisdiction and carries certain limitations in its ambit. One of the limitations is that the Court will not pass new orders in continuation of the earlier lis between the parties on merits assuming continuous review or original jurisdiction. When the civil contempt alleged is of willful disobedience of the order of the Court, the Court will either discharge the proceedings or proceed to punish for contempt. If there is any doubt or lacuna in the original order, it is a matter of review jurisdiction and not contempt jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in various decisions, has disapproved passing new orders in contempt jurisdiction, which are referred to hereinafter," the Court observed.

The Court mentioned Supreme Court's decision in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran and Senthur v. T.N. Public Service Commission

Thereafter, re-iterating the settled legal position in regard to civil contempt jurisdiction, the Court observed,"As regards the case at hand, the contempt petition is still pending and has not been disposed of. The learned Single Judge has not concluded that there is any wilful disobedience on the part of the Appellant Board to proceed to take action for contempt. There is no discussion in the order dated 15 January 2025 as to whether it is passed to implement the order dated 27 October 2017, or it introduces new directions or it adjudicates issues not covered in the original order, in the context of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul and other decisions cited above."

The impugned order was accordingly set-aside.

Cause Title: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Raphael And Company

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Joseph Jose, Senior Advocate Raju Joseph

Respondent- Advocate Philip T. Varghese, Advocate Thomas T. Varghese, Advocate Achu Subha Abraham

Click here to read/ download Order






Kerala High CourtJustice Nitin JamdarJustice S Manu

Sheetal Joon