Holding

A judge who has already ruled on the existence of contempt cannot be superseded by another judge of the same court; only the original judge may consider punishment or remission.

Summary

The appellants, shareholders of RBT Private Ltd., filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent, a fellow shareholder, willfully violated court and arbitral orders by removing assets and failing to pay loan EMIs. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 5 December 2023 held the respondent guilty of contempt and gave him time to purge it. After a change of roster, another Single Judge revisited the matter on 3 July 2024 and discharged the show‑cause notice, finding no willful disobedience. The appellants appealed, contending that a second judge could not re‑determine the existence of contempt after a prior finding. The Supreme Court held that once a judge has adjudicated contempt, only the same judge may consider punishment, and a different judge cannot revisit the substantive finding of contempt. Consequently, the Court quashed the July 2024 order, remitted the case to the original judge, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a different Single Judge of the same High Court can revisit and overturn a prior finding of contempt after the earlier judge has already held the respondent guilty.
Whether the second judge could merely consider punishment or purge of contempt, or was impermissibly re‑examining the substantive contempt finding.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 11, s. 17, s. 26, s. 9
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 13, s. 19
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016s. 14, s. 9
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Headnote

Issue for Consideration When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, whether another Judge could have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, the High Court in a contempt petition held the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent

Subjects

ContemptContempt of CourtMoUWilful and deliberate disobedienceIntentional violation of ordersJudicial proprietyArbitration

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1603 : 2025 INSC 546

Rajan Chadha & Anr.
v.
Sanjay Arora
(Civil Appeal No. 5467 of 2025)
23 April 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view
holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, whether another
Judge could have come to a finding that the respondent was not
guilty of contempt.

Headnotes†
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, 19 – On 05.12.2023,
the Single Judge of the High Court in a contempt petition held
the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating
orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed
contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the
Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent
to purge the contempt failing which the respondent was
directed to file an affidavit stating as to why he should not be
punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – On change
of roster, another Single Judge of the High Court was seized
of the contempt petition – On 03.07.2024, the Single Judge
of the High Court by the impugned judgment and final order,
came to the conclusion that there was no willful and deliberate
disobedience by the respondent – Thus, the show cause notice
issued to the respondent was discharged – Correctness:
Held: It is clear that the Single Judge of the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.07.2024
has reviewed the entire order of the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 –
After the order was passed on 05.12.2023, another Single Judge
could have only considered whether the respondent had purged
the contempt and if not purged the contempt, as to whether he
should be punished or not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 –
It was not permissible for the Single Judge to have revisited the
issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt
* Author
1604 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

or not – If the Respondent was of the view that the order passed
by the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 holding him to be guilty of
contempt was not correct in law, the only option available to him
was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Having accepted the order dated
05.12.2023, the respondent could not have contended, or for that
matter, the Single Judge could not have held that the respondent
has not committed contempt of the Court – It is also contrary to the
well settled principles of judicial propriety – When one Judge of the
same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be
guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to a finding
that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. [Paras 16, 17, 19]

List of Keywords
Contempt; Contempt of Court; MoU (Memorandum of Understanding);
Wilful and deliberate disobedience; Intentional violation of orders.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5467 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CONT. CAS (C) No. 75 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rohan Jaitley, Tanvir Nayar,
Akshay Sharma, Bhuvnesh Sehgal, Dev Pratap Shahi, Yogya Bhatia.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Anjaneya Mishra, Sahil
Yadav, Ms. Vernika Tomar.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and final order
dated 3rd July 2024 in CONT. CAS(C) 75/2021 passed by a learned
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1605

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter,
“High Court”) whereby the contempt petition filed by the Appellants
came to be dismissed.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
3.1 One company by the name of “RBT Private Ltd.” carried out
the business of dyeing, printing and trading of fabrics. Rajan
Chadha, Rajiv Chadha, Sanjay Arora and Sumit Gupta were the
shareholders as well as Directors of the company. Rajan Chadha
and Rajiv Chadha (Appellants) had a combined shareholding
of 51.36%, Sanjay Arora (Respondent) had 25% and Sumit
Gupta had 23.64%.
3.2 On 21st December 2019, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) was made and executed by and between the company,
Appellants, Respondent, Sumit Gupta and one Shilpa Gupta.
The MoU was entered into for transfer of shareholding in the
company and to re-organize the company’s management. In-
effect, the Respondent was to purchase the entire shareholding
of the Appellants and thereafter, the Respondent was responsible
to run the affairs of the company. The MoU also provides that in
case of any claim, dispute or difference, the parties shall seek
to resolve the same by mutual consultation and negotiation.
In the event, the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the
dispute is to be settled by arbitration.
3.3 Alleging that the Respondent has failed to discharge his
obligation under the MoU inasmuch as the Respondent has
started operating another entity from the premises of the
company, is siphoning off plant and machinery which was owned
by the company and is defaulting in paying instalments of the
term loan – the Appellants issued a legal notice to resolve the
issues.
3.4 On receiving no reply from Respondent, the Appellants issued
a notice in terms of Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996 (hereinafter, “Arbitration Act”), on 17th March 2020.
Pursuant thereto, the sole arbitrator was appointed by the
company.
1606 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3.5 The Appellants, thereafter, filed a petition in the High Court under
Section 9 of Arbitration Act inter-alia praying for a direction to
restrain the Respondent from disposing off/alienating, siphoning
off or in any manner creating any 3rd party interest or charge
in the assets of the company, to restrain the Respondent from
using the premises of the company for business operations of
any other entity, etc.
3.6 On 11th June 2020, a learned Single Judge of the High Court
disposed of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act
by recording the submissions of the parties and by appointing
a new arbitrator.
3.7 On 17 th June 2020, before the arbitrator, the Appellants
contended that the application filed before the High Court under
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act be treated as an application
under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The Respondent objected
to the conversion of the application and its maintainability.
The arbitrator, while giving time to the Respondent to file a
reply, recorded that the statements made by the counsel for
Respondent before the High Court (recorded in the order dated
11th June 2020) will be binding upon the Respondent.
3.8 On 1st July 2020, the arbitrator on a prima facie reading of
the terms of the MoU observed that certain amount had to be
infused into the loan account of the company by the Respondent
and there is nothing on record to show that it has been done.
It was further observed that the collateral security for the loan
is a house which is jointly owned by the Appellant No. 1 and
his wife. It was further observed that if, the EMI qua the loan
account is not discharged by the company, the account would
become a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and would then be
subject matter of SARFESI1 Act 2002. The arbitrator, therefore,
being of the view that the apprehension of the Appellant has
been prima facie established directed that, till the disposal of
the petition, the Respondent shall continue to pay the EMIs
into the loan account of the company as per the terms and
conditions of the loan account.

1 The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1607

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

3.9 The Appellants, thereafter, alleging that the Respondent is not
complying with the order of the arbitrator and is removing the
assets of the company illegally, filed an application before the
arbitrator under Section 26 of the Arbitration Act inter-alia for a
Local Commissioner to be appointed and to prepare an inventory
of assets lying at the factory premises of the company. The
same was allowed by the arbitrator on 16th December 2020.
3.10 On 22nd December 2020, the report of the Local Commissioner
was received. As per the said report, all the machines were
present and operational at the premises of the company except
one – a Flat Bed Printing Machine.
3.11 Aggrieved by the findings of the Local Commissioner so also
by the fact that the Respondent till that point of time had
not deposited any amount of EMIs in the loan account, the
Appellants filed a Contempt Petition bearing CONT. CAS(C)
No. 75/2021 before the High Court on 13th January 2021. The
Appellants inter-alia prayed that the Respondent be prosecuted
and punished; and to ensure the immediate compliance of
the order dated 11th June 2020 passed by the High Court
and orders dated 17th June 2020 and 1st July 2020 passed
by the arbitrator.
3.12 During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh admitted a petition
against the company under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter, “IBC”), initiated Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and declared a
moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the IBC. Resultantly,
the arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die by an order
dated 13th July 2021.
3.13 On 5th December 2023, a learned Single Judge of the High
Court upon hearing the parties observed that the Respondent
has removed material from the premises of the company and
that though the Respondent was directed to pay EMIs of the
loan account, the same has also not been done. It was further
observed that the Respondent and the company are distinct
entities, and the undertaking was given by Respondent. It was
further observed that the Respondent is not under liquidation
1608 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and the Section 14 IBC moratorium will not apply to the
Respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in
the result, held that the Respondent is guilty of intentionally
and malafidely violating orders dated 11th June 2020 and 1st
July 2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the
Court. In light of the same, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court granted 4 weeks’ time to the Respondent to purge
the contempt failing which the Respondent was directed to file
an affidavit stating as to why he should not be punished under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter was next listed
on 5th March 2024.
3.14 Thereafter another learned Single Judge of the High Court,
on change of roster, was seized of the contempt petition filed
by the Appellants.
3.15 On 3rd July 2024, the learned Single Judge of the High Court by
the impugned judgment and final order, came to the conclusion
that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience by the
Respondent of the order passed by the High Court and the
arbitrator. The show cause notice issued to the Respondent
was discharged.
3.16 Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants filed the present appeal by
way of special leave.
3.17 On 9th August 2024, this Court while issuing notice – dispensed
with the personal presence of the Respondent until further
orders.
4. We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
5. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellants, submits that the approach of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order
is totally in breach of the settled legal position. It is submitted that
once the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated
5th December 2023, on merits, held that the Respondent was guilty
of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders dated 11th June
2020 and 1st July 2020 and, as such, had committed the contempt
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1609

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

of the orders of the Court, another learned Single Judge of the High
Court before whom the matter was subsequently listed could not
have reviewed the matter and held the Respondent not to be guilty
of contempt.
6. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija submits that the learned Single Judge of
the High Court vide the impugned judgment and final order dated
3rd July 2024 has virtually sat in an appeal over the order passed by
another Single Judge of the High Court dated 5th December 2023.
7. It is, therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be
allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 3rd July 2024 be quashed and set aside.
8. Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the contrary, submits that the learned Single Judge of
the High Court after considering the affidavit filed by the Respondent
and all the subsequent developments, by a well-reasoned order, has
come to a considered conclusion that there was no deliberate and
willful disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court and has
rightly dismissed the contempt petition.
9. Mr. Suri further submitted that the perusal of Sections 12 and 13 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would reveal that the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned judgment and final order has
correctly considered the legal provisions and held the Respondent not
to be guilty. He, therefore, submits that the present appeal warrants
no interference and should be dismissed.
10. With the assistance of the learned senior counsel for the parties, we
have perused the record.
11. At the outset, we clarify that we do not propose to go into the
merits of the matter. We are only considering the correctness of the
procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
while passing the impugned judgment and order.
12. Undisputedly, the another learned Single Judge of the same Court
after considering the merits of the matter and submissions of the
rival parties had observed thus:
“19. For the said reasons, I am of the view that respondent
No.1 is guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the
1610 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and thus, has
committed contempt of the orders of the Court.
20. 4 weeks are granted to the respondent to purge the
contempt, failing which respondent No.1 shall file an
affidavit as to why he should not be punished under the
Contempt of Courts Act within 2 weeks thereafter.
21. List on 05.03.2024.”
13. It can thus be clearly seen that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court, in unequivocal terms, held the Respondent to be guilty
of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders dated 11th June
2020 and 1st July 2020 and thus committing contempt of the orders
of the Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the
said order had granted time to the Respondent either to purge the
contempt or failing which to file an affidavit as to why he should not
be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
14. It is thus clear that the matter was postponed only for the purposes
of enabling the Respondent either to purge the contempt or in the
event he did not purge the contempt, to file an affidavit showing
cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of
Courts Act.
15. When the matter was listed before the another learned Single Judge
of the High Court after the change of roster, again after considering
the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge of the same Court
vide impugned judgment and final order observed thus:
“38. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, and considering
the material on record, it cannot be said that there is any
wilful and deliberate disobedience by the respondents of
the order passed by this Court and the learned Arbitrator.
No merit is found in the present petition. Accordingly, notice
to show cause as to why the respondent No.1 should not
be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, is hereby
discharged.
39. The present petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid
terms.”
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1611

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

16. It is thus clear that the learned Single Judge of the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024
has reviewed the entire order of the learned Single Judge dated
5th December 2023. After the order was passed on 5th December
2023, another learned Single Judge could have only considered
whether the Respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged
the contempt, as to whether he should be punished or not under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It was not permissible for the
learned Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the
Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not.
17. If the Respondent was of the view that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 5th December 2023 holding him to be
guilty of contempt was not correct in law, the only option available to
him was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having accepted the order dated 5th
December 2023, the Respondent could not have contended, or for
that matter, the learned Single Judge could not have held that the
Respondent has not committed contempt of the Court.
18. It is a different matter as to whether the Court while considering the
provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
could have arrived at a finding as to whether the Respondent was
liable to be punished or not or whether in the facts of the case he
should be discharged or the punishment awarded was liable to be
remitted on apology made to the satisfaction of the Court or not. In
our view, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court by
holding that the Respondent had not committed contempt amounts to
sitting in an appeal over the order passed by the coordinate Bench
dated 5th December 2023.
19. In our considered opinion, apart from this being in excess of the
jurisdiction, it is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial
propriety. When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular
view holding the Respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge
could not have come to a finding that the Respondent was not guilty
of contempt.
20. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to quash and set aside
the impugned judgment and final order. We order accordingly. The
matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge of the High Court
1612 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for considering the issue from the stage of the passing of the order
dated 5th December 2023.
21. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed in
the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan