Holding

The statutory right of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is exhausted after an appeal to a Division Bench, and no further appeal to the Supreme Court is available; the Single Judge's directions were justified.

Summary

Petitioners Mohammad Joris and others were sentenced to one month in civil jail by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court for contempt after breaching an undertaking given in a pending suit. They appealed to a Division Bench under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that they had a right of appeal as of right to the Supreme Court and that the Single Judge was not authorized to issue directions beyond the contempt punishment. The Supreme Court held that when a contempt order is made by a Single Judge, the only statutory right of appeal is to a Division Bench of at least two judges; once that appeal is taken, the right is exhausted and no further appeal to the Supreme Court is available. The Court also found that the Single Judge was justified in issuing directions because the petitioners clearly breached their undertaking. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners have a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court after a Division Bench has dismissed their appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the Single Judge was justified in issuing directions in addition to imposing contempt punishment.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 19(1)

Subjects

contempt of courtappeal rightStatutory appealHigh CourtSupreme CourtSpecial Leave Petitionundertaking breachcriminal contempt

Judgment

598

A MOHAMMAD JORIS AND ANR.
v.
RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.
August 22, 1984

B (0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATl! MISRA, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19~1).
•
/
High Court-Single Judge-Ordering co1111nittal for conten1pt of court-
Appeal filed before, Division Be!;ch-Dismissed-Wherher statuto1y right of
appeal lies to Supreme Court.
c The two petitioners in the Special Leave Petition were committed to
the civil jail for a period of one month by a Single Judge of the High •
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they had nctcd in breach
of an undertaking given by them in a suit pending in the High Court. The
appeal preferred by the petitioners und1:r Section 19(1) of the Act to a
Division Bench was dismissed.
•
D In the Special Leave Petition it was contended on behalf of the
petitioners that : ( l) trough the petition had bern filed undl.!r Afticle 136
the petitioners have, in Jaw, an appeal as of right under Secrion 19(1), and
(2) the Single Judge wss not justified in giving directions in addition to
punishing the petitioners for contempt of court.
•
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition,
E
HELD : 1. If 1he order of committal for contempt of court is made
by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges. If lhe order of corn~
mittal of contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right •
to the Supreme Court. Where an appeal is filed against the Order of the
Single Judge to a Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal gets
F exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
(600B-C]
•
2. As there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the
p.)titioners, the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions
to close the breach. [600E]

C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) •
No. 9395 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1984 of
the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984. •
H R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
Mb. iDRis v. i\. J. BAilUJI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 599
R. Karenjawata for the Respondent. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On an allegation that the petitioners
had acted in breach of an undertaking given by them in Suit No.
2308 of 1983 in the High Court of Bombay, a notice was issued to B
them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt
of court. Cause was sought to be shown. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court recorded the following finding :

"In my judgment the action of defendants Nos 4 and
6 clearly shows utter contempt for the orders of the court c
and under taking given by them. I have no hesitation iu
holding that these defendants have committed gross con-
.. tempt of Court ... in my judgment, there is no circumstance
whatsoever to take <iny lenient view of the gross contempt
committed by defendants 4 and 6 and both of them are
liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of D
Courts Act."

On those findings the learned Single Judge committed each of
the two petitioners to the civil jail for the period of one month.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners prefer-
• red an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court under E
s. 19(!) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was
dismissed by the Division Bench and the present Special Leave Peti-
tion has been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench.
Shri Ramesh N. Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that though the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal has been filed
under Article I 36 of the Constitution, the petitioners have, in law, F
an appeal as of right under s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The submission has only to be stated to be rejected as totally lacking
• in substance. Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is as
follows:

"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or G
decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt-

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge,
• to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the ff
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 1 S.C.R.

A Supreme Court ;

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory,
such aopeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."
B If the order of commital for conrompt or' Court is made by a
Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. If the
order of comm ital for cuntempt of court is made by a Bench, an
•
appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court. Where an appeal is
filed against th<; order of the learned Single Judge to a Division
c Bench, tne staiutory ngnt oi appeal gets exhausted and there is no
further right of appeal to the Supreme Court Shri Keshwani cited
to u~ Purushottam Das Goel v. Hon. Justice B.S. Dhi/lon.\1) The
decision 1s entirely irrelevant. •

D On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the undertaking
given was not in respect of the property concerned anci that in any
case the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving certain
directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of
court. We find no substance in the submissions made by the learned
counsel. There was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the
E petitioners and we are of the opinion that the Single Judge was •
quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach. The
Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed

•

N.V.K. Petition dismissed.

•

0) A.I.&. 19V8 S.C. 1014.