Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently held that in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders in a contempt cases, the High Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said the court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the court order and in that regard, the court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.

The apex court delineated on the principle and remanded a matter to the Calcutta High Court for further proceedings, by allowing in part an appeal filed by Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, a registered society.

By its November 12, 2014 judgment, a division bench held the society's act of willful disobedience to the stay order passed in the first appeal, was not only contemptuous but also illegal and invalid. However, instead of initiating proceedings for contempt, division bench opined that justice would be subserved by vacating the stay order passed in the first appeal.

Aggrieved by this turn of events, the contemnor-society filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The matter arose out a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and damages for a property in Kolkata filed by Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust, Kolkata against Baitanik.

The trial court decreed the suit by its judgment on February 25, 2009 and directed delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust within 30 days. Execution proceedings were initiated by the Trust on July 30, 2009.

As the society preferred an appeal, the High Court directed for an unconditional stay on further execution proceedings, directed the appellant to deposit Rs 10 lakh and maintain status quo without creating third party interest in relation to the property.

Subsequently, the HC on August 10, 2010 granted two additional months to deposit Rs 10 lakh but the money was deposited on December 22, 2010. An application filed by the society to let our premises was rejected by the HC.

Thereafter, the High Court's division bench found the society violated the status quo order by letting out premises and granting licence for short terms to the third parties.

The division bench, thus, opined that justice would be subserved by vacating the said order of stay of execution proceedings without initiating a proceeding for contempt.

Before the apex court, the contemnor-society contended that it was not open to the High Court to vacate the stay order passed in the appeal in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

The Trust, on the contrary, argued that the impugned order does not warrant interference as the order of stay passed on March 03, 2010 in the appeal stood vacated automatically for violation of conditions.

The bench, however, said, violation of a conditional stay order, in the usual course, would entail vacating thereof in a properly constituted proceeding and by resorting to such a step while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the High Court was not acting in furtherance of the principle.

"We find that the fact situation in the present case is such, that vacating of the stay order in the appeal by the High Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction did not assume either a restitutive or a remedying character. Violation of the status quo condition in the stay order stood complete, even as per the High Court, and vacating of the stay order did not have the effect of restoring the parties to their original position or deny the contemnor the benefit of the disobedience which already stood concluded."

The bench further said no doubt, the concluded act in violation of the status quo order in relation to possession of the suit premises amounted to ‘civil contempt’ under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and warranted appropriate consequences under the provisions thereof. However, without taking recourse to such a step, the High Court here thought it fit to vacate the stay order in the appeal so as to enable the Trust to execute the decree.

"This action of the High Court clearly transgressed the scope and extent of its contempt jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. To that extent, the impugned order is set aside. However, as the High Court desisted from exercising contempt jurisdiction, owing to this misconceived measure, despite finding the contemnor guilty of willfully violating the status quo condition in the stay order, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court for continuing with that exercise as we have now set aside the course of action adopted by the High Court in the alternative," the bench said.

With regard to the contention by the Trust asserts that the stay order stood vacated due to default in making deposit, the bench said the trust would be liberty to take appropriate steps and all such measures as permissible in law.