Bombay High Court
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd vs Sergi Transformer Explosion ... on 15 December, 2022
Bench: K.R. Sriram, Kamal Khata
Digitally signed
by GAURI
GAURI AMIT
AMIT GAEKWAD 1/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
GAEKWAD Date:
2022.12.19
17:04:21 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
(213) COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.193 OF 2013
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.296 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.287 OF 2017
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2017
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
(214) COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.191 OF 2013
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.297 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.285 OF 2017
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2017
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
(216) COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.192 OF 2013
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.293 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.286 OF 2017
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2017
Gauri Gaekwad
2/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
(218) COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.103 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.665 OF 2012
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.463 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.464 OF 2017
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.103 OF 2017
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Respondents
----
Mr. Darpan Bhatia a/w. Mr. Siddhant Trivedi i/b. Induslaw for appellant in
all appeals.
Mr. Deepak Deshmukh a/w. Ms. Nisha Kaba i/b. Naik Naik and Company
for respondent no.1 in all appeals.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATED : 15th DECEMBER 2022
P.C. :
1 All these appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court dismissing the contempt petitions appellants had
filed against respondents. The Court, after hearing the parties extensively
and in a very detailed 49 pages judgment, held respondents not to be guilty
of contempt.
2 Once the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no
contempt, in our view, that is not an appealable order. We have to note that
Gauri Gaekwad
3/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
even at the time of admission, the Court had flagged the issue of
maintainability. Contempt is something between the Court and the alleged
contemnor.
3 The Supreme Court in the case of D.N. Taneja V/s. Bhajan Lal1
has held as under :
"A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged
contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court
for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain
facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such
information he may still assist the court, but the aggrieved party
under section 19(1) can only be the contemnor who has been
punished for contempt of court."
(emphasis supplied)
Similarly, this Court in the case of Rajaram Waman Masurkar
V/s. Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak2 has held as under :
"A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged
contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court
for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts
constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such
information he may still assist the court, but it must always be
borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two
parties, namely ,the court and the contemnor. It may be one of
the reasons which weighed with the Legislature in not
conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt.
The aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the
contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court."
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthu Karuppan V/s. Parithi
Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.3 held as under :
1. 1988 (3) SCC 26
2. 2018 SCC Online Bom. 12344
3. 2011 (5) SCC 496
Gauri Gaekwad
4/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
"............................. In a series of decisions, this Court has
held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also
the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are discretionary with
the court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly
is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. No
one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings
for contempt. The person filing an application or petition before
the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the
proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends
with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is
thereafter for the court to act on such information or not."
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore People's Co-op. Bank
Ltd. and Ors. V/s. Chunilal Nanda and Ors.4 held as under :
10. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ['CC Act' for
short] provides for appeals. Relevant portion of sub-section (1)
thereof is extracted below :
19. (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 :
The scope of Section 19 has been considered by this Court in
Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Purushotam
Dass Goel v. Justice B.S. Dhillon, Union of India v. Mario Cabral
e Sa, D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, State of Maharashtra v.
Mahboob S. Allibhoy and J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar. These
cases dealt with orders refusing to initiate contempt
proceedings or initiating contempt proceedings or acquitting/
exonerating the contemnor or dropping the proceedings for
contempt. In all these cases, it was held that an appeal was not
maintainable under section 19 of CC Act as the said Section
only provided for an appeal in respect of orders punishing for
contempt.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10.3. While Baradakanda Mishra and Purushotam Das left open
the question whether an appeal under section 19 would be
4. (2006) 5 SCC 399
Gauri Gaekwad
5/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
maintainable in certain areas, in D. N. Taneja (supra), a three-
Judge Bench of this Court, categorically held that appeals under
section 19 would lie only against the orders punishing the
contemnor for contempt and not any other order passed in
contempt proceedings.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The aggrieved party under section 19(1) can only be the
contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V/s.
Mahboob S. Allibhoy and Anr.5 held as under :
4. It is well known that contempt proceeding is not a dispute
between two parties, the proceeding is primarily between the
court and the person who is alleged to have committed the
contempt of court. The person who informs the court or brings
to the notice of the court that anyone has committed the
contempt of such court is not in the position of a prosecutor, he
is simply assisting the court so that the dignity and the majesty
of the court is maintained and upheld. It is for the court, which
initiates the proceeding to decide whether the person against
whom such proceeding has been initiated should be punished or
discharged taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the particular case. This Court in the case of Baradakanta
Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra C.J. of the Orissa H.C.,
AIR 1974 SC 2255 - 1975(1) SCR 524 said :
...Where the Court rejects a motion or a reference and
5. 1998 (4) SCC 411
Gauri Gaekwad
6/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
declines to initiate a proceeding for contempt, it refuses to
assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and
such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in the
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Such a
decision would not, therefore, fall within the opening
words of Section 19, subsection (l) and no appeal would
lie against it as of right under that provision.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No appeal is maintainable against an order dropping proceeding
for contempt or refusing to initiate a proceeding for contempt is
apparent not only from sub section (1) of Section 19 but also
from sub-section (2) of Section 19 which provides that pending
any appeal the appellate Court may order that -
(a) the execution of the punishment or the 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.
Sub-section (2) of Section 19 indicates that the reliefs provided
under clauses (a) to (c) can be claimed at the instance of the
person who has been proceeded against for contempt of court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Dey and Others V/s.
Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others6 held as under :
"We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be used in
abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for
execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which
alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the
Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and
majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist
that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is
between a contemnor and the Court."
(emphasis supplied)
6. 2000 (4) SCC 400
Gauri Gaekwad
7/7 213,214,216, 218-COMAP-98-2017.doc
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soorajmull Nagarmull
V/s. Brijesh Mehrotra7 held as under :
"Discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings
under Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for
maintenance of court's dignity and majesty of law and further
an aggrieved party has no right to insist that court should
exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between
contemner and the court."
(emphasis supplied)
4 All appeals dismissed. Consequently, all interim applications
also stand disposed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
7. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1252
Gauri Gaekwad
