Passi Lamu Sherpa And Ano vs The Branch Manager, New India Assurance ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 105 Sikkim

Sikkim High Court

Passi Lamu Sherpa And Ano vs The Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... on 25 October, 2024

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai

Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai

               THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                                            (Civil Jurisdiction)
                                   DATED : 25th October, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Cont.Cas(C) No.03 of 2024
                  Petitioners              :        Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another

                                                            versus

                  Respondent               :        The Branch Manager,
                                                    New India Assurance Company Limited

                    Application under Sections 11 and 12 of the
                              Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Appearance
                Mr. Umesh Ranpal, Advocate with Ms. Rubusha Gurung and Ms.
                Choki Sherpa, Advocate.

                  Mr. Dipayan Roy, Advocate, for the Respondent (through VC).
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 ORDER

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The question that arises before this Court is, Whether

the Respondent Company is guilty of civil contempt for wilful

disobedience of the Judgment of this Court dated 14-05-2024 in

MAC App. No.07 of 2023 (Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another vs. The

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Another),

in terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The

said provision reads as follows;

"2. Definitions.--

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

...........................................................................

(b) "Civil Contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilfull breach of an undertaking given to a court;

...................................................................................."

Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Another

3. The Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad and Others vs.

State of Haryana and Others explaining the expression "wilful

disobedience" has held inter alia as follows;

"9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "civil contempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court ...". Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of a court made in favour of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the court may not punish the alleged contemner."

4. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Respondent

Company that although the impugned Judgment was pronounced

on 14-05-2024 and the process for filing of Appeal before the

(1994) 6 SCC 332

Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Another

Supreme Court against the Judgment began on 22-05-2024, on

account of the procedure involved due to the Respondent being an

unwieldy organisation and considering the various levels of

authorities that the File had to be processed through the delay had

occurred. That, the delay was neither wilful or intentional neither

was there any attempt to wilfully and intentionally disobey the

Judgment of this Court. Hence, the Contempt Petition be

dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner per contra submitted

that the ground put forth deserves no consideration as the Appeal

was filed only on 19-09-2024 when the impugned Judgment was of

May, 2024, besides there is no proof of admission of the Appeal

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Respondent

is guilty of wilful disobedience of the Judgment of this Court and

ought to be penalized proportionately.

6. Having been given due consideration to the facts and

circumstances placed before me, I find that the Respondent did

initiate steps for filing the Appeal which has now been filed before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure R1). Although the ground

that the Appeal was allegedly delayed due to the hierarchical layers

of Authority that the File had to be processed through, has to be

taken with a pinch of salt, nonetheless, it stands to reason that

given the unwieldy size of the organization and the lackadaisical

attitude of every officer perhaps, the delay has occurred.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no ground to

enable this Court to conclude that there has been wilful or

intentional disobedience of the Judgment of this Court, nor has

Counsel for the Petitioners been able by any measure whatsoever

to establish the allegation.

Passi Lamu Sherpa and Another vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Another

7. In Kishor s/o Bhikansingh Rajput vs. Preeti w/o Kishor

Rajput the Court held that;

"8. Normally, when this Court is ceased (sic:

seized) of the matter, it is expected of the subordinate courts to stay their hands away. It is difficult to understand as to what was an alarming urgency to proceed further and dismiss the petition when the learned Judge of the Family Court was very well aware that the order dated 15th September, 2006 was challenged before this Court by the present petitioner. No doubt, that the learned Family Court is right in observing that there was no stay by this Court. But as a matter of propriety and when the learned Judge was very much aware about pendency of the petition before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have stayed his hands away and waited till further orders to be passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition."

(i) In Pradhyumansinh Bhavubha Jadeja vs. L/H of Decreased

Sitaba Girvansinh Gohil the Court observed that;

"6. In response, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kishor Bhikansingh Rajput v. Preeti Kishor Rajput, 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 279, the order of subordinate Court is totally perverse as it is totally ignored the order of this Court as when the High Court is ceased of the matter, it is expected of the subordinate court to stay till further order to be passed by the High Court. He has prayed to allow the present application."

(ii) Although the two matters referred to supra are

concerned with the High Court and the District Judiciary, the same

principles would be applicable when the High Court and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court are concerned. Judicial propriety must be adhered

to considering that the Appeal has been presented before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Contempt

Petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 25-10-2024

Approved for reporting : Yes ds/sdl

2007(2) Mh.L.J. 481 : 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 102

2019 SCC OnLine Guj 1911