Gwaliar Cement Co. vs Padam Aggarwal
1995 Latest Caselaw 830 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) The appellant contends that there is a breach of the order of the Court (J.K. Mehra, J.) which restrained the deft in Suit No. 725/94 from "leaving the country without permission of this Court" till the next date of hearing. It is asserted that the deft. left the country without obtaining the permission of the Court. This assertion is supported by subsequent orders.

(2) A civil contempt petition was filed. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the contempt petition was made for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.

(3) It has been held in [1981 (2) Ilr Delhi 993], that civil contempt in certain circumstances has a two-fold character, (i) reparatory between the parties to the action, and (ii) "criminal nature" between the court and the contemner. Here the petitioner has not prayed for any reparation against the original deft/respdt for non-compliance with the order of the Court. Nor does the petition contain any pleas regarding any alleged contumacious conduct on the part of the defts. A Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (Devinder Gupta, J.) has dismissed the petition and hence this appeal has been filed. It is not disputed before us that the defts went out of India without permission of the Court, but have since come back.

(4) Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of this case, as the petitioner did not seek reparations from the defts. none can be given in the civil contempt proceedings. As regards the criminal element of contempt, the Hon'ble Single Judge (Devinder Gupta, J.) has said that the instant case lacks adequate proof of service of restraint order on the defts. In this view of the matter, we feel that there cannot be any matter between the court and the contemner as it is not proved that the defts. had the knowledge of the restraint order.