Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Vohra And Anr vs Dr. Arvind Chaturvedi, S.P. ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar Nigam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50658-DB
Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 7 of 2023
Appellant :- Saurabh Vohra And Anr
Respondent :- Dr. Arvind Chaturvedi, S.P. Barabanki And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shankar Trivedi
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
This is a contempt appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under:
"(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt?(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt?
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that?
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed?
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against."
The aforesaid provision came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 and in paragraph no. 11 thereof, their Lordships held as under:
"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus :
I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)."
The said decision has been followed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020 (Roop Singh v. Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & 5 others).
From the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Contempt Court, we find that the contempt petition has been dismissed, therefore, it is not a case where the contempt appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 by the alleged contemnor against punishment or any other order prejudicial to him but it is an appeal filed by the petitioner who had filed the contempt petition which has been dismissed.
In these circumstances, this contempt appeal is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
It is however, open to the appellant to avail other remedies as may be permissible in law.
Order Date :- 1.8.2023
Ved Prakash
(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
