Delhi High Court
Arun Khanna vs Vinod Khanna on 21 March, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 235/2024 & CM APPL. 17770/2024
ARUN KHANNA ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant through SPA Holder Ms.
Vaneeta Khanna
versus
VINOD KHANNA ..... Respondent
Through: None
% Date of Decision: 21st March, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
CM APPL. 17771/2024 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
LPA 235/2024 & CM APPL. 17770/2024
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of
the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which
stands extended to the High Court of Delhi, challenging the impugned
judgment dated 15th February, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Cont. Cas. (C) 916/2019, disposing of the said contempt
petition as satisfied.
2. The Appellant was the original contempt petitioner before the learned
Single Judge and had filed the contempt petition seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the Respondent for the alleged non-
compliance of the order dated 20th February, 2018, passed in FAO No.
51/2018.
3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment has recorded her
findings and concluded that there has been a substantial compliance of the
settlement recorded in the order dated 20th February, 2018 and therefore, the
Court opined that it does not deem it fit to initiate contempt proceedings
against the Respondent.
4. As noted above, the present appeal has been filed by the original
Petitioner invoking Clause X of the Letters Patent, being aggrieved by the
non-initiation of the contempt proceedings against the Respondent.
5. The Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors.
vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors.1 after a detailed examination of right of appeal
against orders passed by the Court in its contempt jurisdiction,
authoritatively held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 ('Act of 1971') cannot be maintained against an order of
the Court declining to initiate proceedings for contempt. In the same
judgment, the Supreme Court [at paragraph 11(V)] held that an intra-court
appeal under Letters Patent would be maintainable only when the Court
hearing the contempt petition decided an issue or makes a direction relating
to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
6. In the present case admittedly, this appeal has not been filed on the
assertion that the learned Single Judge has decided any issue relating to the
(2006) 5 SCC 399 (at para 11)
merits of the dispute or issued any direction to the Appellant herein; and
therefore, the exception carved out in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd
(supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case. The present appeal, as is
apparent from the memorandum of appeal, is filed being aggrieved by the
non-initiation of the contempt proceedings against the Respondent.
However, no right of appeal has been provided under the Act of 1971 to a
petitioner aggrieved by the non-initiation of the contempt proceedings. In
view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd (supra) and D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal2, the Appellant cannot
maintain the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent or Section
19 of the Act of 1971.
7. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with
liberty to the Appellant to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law. It is made clear that we have not examined the merits of the claim made
in this appeal. The application stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 21, 2024/ aa
(1988) 3 SCC 26 (paras 8, 10 and 12)
