Manipur High Court
S. Dhiren Singh & 2 Ors vs Akoijam Sanatomba Singh & 4 Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM Sl.14&15
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.07.31
15:31:39 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cont.App.(C)No.1 of 2024
S. Dhiren Singh & 2 Ors.
Applicants
Vs.
Akoijam Sanatomba Singh & 4 ors.
Respondents
With
MC(Cont.App(C))No.1 of 2024
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)
30.07.2025
[1] Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. L. Raju is present before
the court physically.
[2] This appeal has been initiated against the order dated
15.09.2023 in respect of the Contempt Case No.36 of 2023. However, the
aforesaid the contempt case is pending.
[3] However, in this contempt appeal challenging the order
rendered in the Contempt Case No.36 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023 and
wherein in that proceeding of contempt case and whereby directing the
contemnors to appear before this Court on the aforesaid date i.e. dated
16.10.2023 and the said order has been challenged in this contempt appeal
proceeding.
[4] Whereas, in this matter the learned counsel for the
respondents, Mr. Juno Rahman who is also present before the court
Page | 1
physically and wherein the said counsel submitting that even though the
contempt appeal has been initiated keeping in view the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 relating to the challenging of the order dated
15.09.2023 rendered in the contempt case No.36 of 2023 but the
contemnors had already appeared before this court on 16.10.2023. This is
the status which is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents in
this matter.
[5] Whereas, the provision of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, it reveals as appeals- 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. However, keeping in view of the aforesaid provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 relating to the scope of appeals are concerned,
it is deemed appropriate to refer that an appeal is maintainable only against
an order or decision of High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt. The same has been addressed in the case of Midnapore
Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda, AIR 2006 SC 2190. The issue
has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relating to the
scope of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Whereas, in
another judgement in the case of Subhash Chandra V. B.R Kakkar, (1992) 2
Punj LR 46(P&H), it states that when the High Court acquits the contemnor,
no appeal lies; another judgement of 1985 Cr Lj 1030 in the case of Hans
Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which states that, an appeal does not
automatically operate as a stay of the order appealed against; and one more
judgment of S.P Wahi V. Surendra Singh reported in 1983 Cr Lj 1426 which
Page | 2
states that it is not each and every order passed during the contempt
proceedings that is appelleable.
[6] However, in this contempt appeal proceeding, the order dated
15.09.2023 which was rendered in the contempt Case No.36 of 2023 and
whereby in that order directing the contemnors to be present before the
court physically but when the contemnors had already appeared before this
court, this contempt appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly,
this Cont.App.(c) No. 1 of 2024 is hereby disposed of.
[7] Consequent upon the disposal of the Cont.App.(C)No.1 of 2024
by referring the aforesaid judgements, the proceeding in MC(Cont.App.)No.1
of 2024 whereby seeking for stay is also disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
Page | 3
