Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not guilty of contempt as the joint receivers were improperly appointed, the order was not served, and the contempt proceedings were premature.

Summary

Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and others produced a television programme alleging illegal acts by Calcutta Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC), leading CESC to file a defamation suit and obtain an interim injunction restraining further telecasts. The High Court, while confirming the injunction, also appointed joint receivers to seize all related materials, although the order was not served on the appellants and no specific prayer for a receiver had been made. The appellants allegedly failed to hand over the materials to the receivers and were held guilty of contempt, with a fine imposed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appointment of joint receivers was unlawful, the order was not communicated, and the contempt proceedings were premature and unsupported by a completed trial. Consequently, the contempt finding was set aside, the fine refunded, and the contempt proceedings dropped.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of joint receivers without a specific prayer and notice was valid under Order XL Rule 1 of the CPC.
Whether the interim order restraining the appellants was properly communicated to them.
Whether the appellants' failure to hand over materials constituted willful disobedience amounting to contempt.
Whether contempt proceedings could be initiated before the trial on the factual issues was completed.
Whether the contempt was civil or criminal in nature and whether the fine imposed was lawful.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XL Rule 1
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 145

Subjects

contempt of courtcivil contemptcriminal contemptinterim injunctionjoint receiversdefamationmedia broadcastorder complianceprocedural fairnessappointment of receiver

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 789
~
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS. A
II.
C.E.S.C. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2008)
OCTOBER 20, 2008
B
r- _)- [S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1970/Contempt of Courts
(Calcutta High Court) Rules, 1975- Interlocutory order of Court
restraining the defendant in a defamation suit from telecast- c
ing and broadcasting a programme which allegedly defamed
the plaintiff - On the date of confirmation of the order, Joint
Receivers appointed ex parte - Direction to them to take pas-
session of materials pertaining to the programme - Defen-
dants not handing over the materials to the Joint Receivers,
D
stating that they had already given the same to the officials of
- ._.,.,..,
plaintiff - The fact affirmed on affidavit before Court - Trial-
directed to find out the correctness of the statement of the de-
fend ants - During pendency of trial, initiation of Contempt pro-
ceedings - Defendants held guilty of Contempt of Court - On
appeal held: In the facts of the case, defendants not guilty of
E
contempt - Contemners did not violate the interim order
passed by the High Court - There was no basis for appoint-
ment of Joint Receivers - Moreover, appointment of the Re-
ceives, without notice to the contemners was not correct - lni-
t \ tiation of contempt proceedings without conclusion of the trial F
to find the correctness of the facts on the basis of which con-
tempt was initiated was also not correct - Contempt proceed-
ings dropped.
A programme produced by appellant-company was
G
·~ telecast on television, alleging some illegal acts and mal-
practices on the part of respondent-Calcutta Electricity
Supply Company Ltd. (CESC). Respondent filed a defa-
mation suit before High Court. It also sought interlocu-
789 H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

~-
A tory injunction restraining the appellants from publishing
by broadcasting/telecasting any defamation suit before
High Court. It also sought interlocutory injunction restrain.;
ing the appellants from publishing by broadcasting/tele- I

casting any defamatory programme similar to the one in f
B question and to restrain them from re-telecasting and t:
showing a repeat telecast of the programme. Third interim •
relief was sought to appoint a receiver over all the materi- -l_, '
als and documents connected with the programme in ~
question. Single Judge of High Court on 17.5.2004 passed
c ex-pate ad interim order of injunction in terms of the first ~
two prayers. On 30.11.2005, when the matter came up for
confirmation of the interim order, the court in terms of the I

third prayer of the application, appointed Joint/Receivers !--
I
with a direction to take possession of all material docu-
ments, films and materials connected with the programme r-
D 1.-

in question. The Joint/Receivers, on 14.1.2008, when vis- r-

ited the office of the appellants and asked to hand over
the documents and the materials, appellants expressed
----r·
I
[_
their inability to do so stating that such documents had
already been handed over to the representatives of CESC
E when they had come to the office of the Company on I::
11.1.2006. Minutes of Meeting pertaining to the visit were
submitted before the Court. Appellant No. 3 too affirmed
on affidavit as regards the events on 11.1.2006. The Court
by its order dated 15.3.2006 directed trial on the issues
F whether the CESC officials visited the office of the appel-
~-A,. '
lants and whether the documents and materials con-
nected with the programme in question were actually
,-
handed over to CESC officials. While the trial on the above
issues was pending before another Judge, respondents
G initiated contempt proceedings before the Judge who had
passed the order dated 30.11.2005. Each one of the con- ~-·
temners was held guilty of contempt of court for not hand-
ing over the documents and materials to the Joint Receiv-
ers. The appeal against the order was dismissed by Divi-
H sion Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal.
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 791
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

* During pendency of appeal before this court, appel- A
lant, in the proceedings before High Court, undertook to
produce the CDs containing the programme in compli-
ance of the interim order. The Court imposed a fine of Rs.
10,000/- on each of the contemner. On the next day of hear-
ing, the case was further postponed for non-compliance B
of the order.
1' ).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts and materials of the instant case,
do not establish that there was any willful disobedience c
or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.
Appellants are charged with commission of contempt of
the High Court on two counts that : (1) they did not hand
over the materials to the Joint Receivers; and (2) they af-
firmed a false affidavit regarding the events on 11.1.2006.
D
The High Court failed to notice that Single Judge of the
... ---r
i
High Court passed an interim order only in terms of
prayers (a) and (b) of the interlocutory application. It is
not a case of the respondent that the appellants have vio-
lated the terms of the said ex parte ad interim order. [Para
E
27] [806-F-G]
1.2 There was no basis to appoint the Joint Receiv-
ers. No prayer was made therefor on the said date. No
application was filed. The matter was placed before the
Single Judge only for confirmation of the ad interim order F
f; .)(' passed and not for deciding on the prayer (c) concerned.
A bare perusal of the said order would clearly indicate that
even a prima facie finding had not been arrived at war-
ranting appointment of receiver. No reason has been as-
signed in support thereof. No jurisdictional fact that it was
G
just and proper to appoint a receiver as is required under
.,A Order XL Rule 1 CPC was recorded far less why the same
was found to be necessary and emergent. In any event, a
show-cause notice at the first instance should have been
issued. [Para 29] [807-C-E]
H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 2.1 The Single Judge of High Court himself had no-
ticed that the appellants were not represented on date ~
when the order appointing Receivers was passed. In the
aforementioned premise, it was obligatory on the part of
the respondents and/or the High Court itself to communi-
B cate the said order to the appellants. The High Court ap-
pears to have proceeded. on the presumption that the
appellants were aware thereof despite a categorical stand
taken by respondent itself that the said order had not been -l.. ,
served. Even the High Court did not communicate the
c order to the appellant which course ordinarily should have
been resorted to. [Paras 27 and 28] [806-G-H; 807-A-B]
2.2 The Court even did not bother to see that the or-
der of the court was intimated to the appellants. Why the
order dated 30.11.2005 was not made known to the ap-
D pellants till 10.1.2006 is baffling and despite the same it
was observed that the said order was within the specific
knowledge of the appellants. [Para 33] [809-H; 810-A]
3.1 The proceedings started on the basis of the min-
utes of meeting dated 14.1.2006 presented by the Joint
"!- -
E Receivers before the High Court. The enquiry was directed
for the purpose of finding out as to whether the CECS
officials had· indeed visited the office of the Company on
11.1.2006 and whether the CDs and cassettes had been
handed over to its officials or not. It may be a step for ini-
F tiation of a contempt proceeding but such a trial was be-
ing conducted for the purpose of finding out the truth as
"'\
to whether the court's order dated 30.11.2005 had, in fact, "'!-.

been violated or not. If the trial had begun with a view to
find as to whether the statemen~ of the appellant that he
G had handed over the materials to the CECS officials was
correct or not, another proceeding should not have been
initiated simultaneously befo.re another Judge. [Paras 31 .......__._,I
and 34] [807-G-H; 808~A; 810-C] •
Mrityunjoy Das and Anr v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman and
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 793
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

Ors. 2001 (3) SCC 739; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and A
Anr. 2001 (7) SCC 530; Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak
Ghosh and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 21; Dr Prodip Kumar Biswas
v. Subrata Das and Ors. 2004 (4) SCC 573; Sushi/a Raje
Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.) 2008 (7) SCALE 484 - relied on.
3.2 When the trial was incomplete, there was no rea- 8
son to hear the contempt proceeding on affidavits. Even
f ) if that was done, reliance was sought to be placed on the.
depositions of the witnesses in the said enquiry, which
was admittedly incomplete. Witnesses affirming affidavits
before the Single Judge were not being cross-examined C
so as to enable the counsel for the parties to draw their
attention to the earlier statement made by them in terms
of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. [Para 31] [808-D-E]
4. The purpose and object of initiation of a proceed-
0
ing under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is only

- to see that the order of the Court is complied with and not
to unnecessarily proceed against persons as if they are
petty. criminals.- [Para 33] [809-E]
5. Imposition of Rs.10,000/- upon the appellants is E
also not justified. No provision in the Act or any prece-
dent have been shown that a court may impose sentences
upon the contemnors in piece meal. [Para 36] [812-G]
6. As orders of injunctions in terms of Prayer (a) and
(b) are in operation and CDs are already in possession of F
the Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India it is directed that the contempt
proceedings itself be dropped. The amount of fine depos-
ited by the appellants should be refunded by the High
Court forthwith. [Para 38] [813-D] G
CASE LAW REFERENCE
2001 (3) SCC 739 Relied on. Para 34
2001 (7) sec s30 Relied on. Para 34
H
'I

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 2002 (4) sec 21 Relied on. Para 34
2004 (4) sec 573 Relied on. Para 34
2008 (7) SCALE 484 Relied on. Para 34
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6156
B of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22. 7.2008 of
the High Court at Calcutta in A.P.O. No. 163 of 2008 in APOT
NO. 125 of 2008 in CC No. 147 of 2006 in GA No. 1812 of
C 2004 in CS NO. 126 of 2004
Gourab Banerji, Saurav Agrawal, A. Krishnan, Gautam Jha,
T.M. Singh and Manik Karanjawala for the Appellants.
L.N. Rao, K.V. Viswanathan, Abhinesh Menon, Kumar Mihir >
D and Sanjay Kumar (for Mis. Khaitan & Co.) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
E with a judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissing their appeal
under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 (for
short, 'the Act') and holding them guilty ot violation of the Court's
order dated 31.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of
F the said Court.
3. Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) is
a producer of some programmes which are telecast.
4. One of such programmes known as 'Khoj Khabar' was
G telecast by ETV (Bangla) alleging some illegal acts and mal-
practices on the part of the Calcutta Electricity Supply Com-
pany Ltd., (CESC) an undertaking engaged in generation and
supply of Electricity in the town of Calcutta.
5. On or about 13.5.2004, CESC filed a defamation suit
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 795
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

~- in the original side of the Calcutta High Court claiming not only A
damages of 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five crores only)
but also a decree for permanent injunction. Along with the said
suit, an interlocutory application marked as G.A.1812 of 2004
was filed claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:
"a. Injunction be passed restraining the respondents and B
each one of them by themselves or by their servants,
.. J agents or otherwise from publishing or causing to be
published by broadcasting/ telecasting any
defamatory programmes similar to that as telecast
on March 12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April c
30, 2004 contained in Annexure A and B hereto or
otherwise in any manner whatsoever.
b. The respondents be restrained from re-telecasting
and/or showing a repeat telecast of the programme
D
'khoj khabar' shown on March, 12, 2004 and March
29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 at 10 pm and the
< respondents be directed to hand over the same.
A receiver be appointed over all materials,
documents, films, tapes and materials connected the E
said telecast 'khoj khabar' made on March 12, 2004
and March 29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 at 10 pm
and the respondents be directed to hand over the
same."
6. Indisputably, on or about 17.5.2004 a learned Single F
> -"I Judge of the High Court passed an ex pa rte ad interim order of
injunction in terms of prayer 'a' and 'b' thereof only.
7. It is now not disputed that although some lawyer had
appeared for the appellants in the said suit but no 'Vakalatnama' G
on their behalf was filed. It is furthermore not in dispute that the
...... said lawyer appeared for a few days and thereafter stopped
/
appearing in the suit or in the said interlocutory matter.

8. Notices having been served upon the appellents, the
matter relating to confirmation of ad interim order of injunction H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

~
A came up before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on
30.11.2005. While noticing that the defendants in the suit had
not opposed the prayers of injunction, although they were ear-
lier represented through counsel, it was opined that apart from
the order of interim injunction as prayed for in prayers 'a' and 'b'
B of the interlocutory application, a receiver should also be ap-
pointed, holding : .
"Having regard to the nature of the matter, I think the order
*•
of injunction will not subserve the interest of justice as
there is possibility to telecast the same from programme
c recorded in this disc by the defendants and/or their agents
and/or servants. In order to prevent further telecasting. or
propagating of this slanderous statement I am inclind to
pass order in terms of prayer (c) of the petition. Accordingly,
Mr. Subrata Mookherjee, Advocate of bar Association,
D Room No.1 and Mr.Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Advocate
of Bar Association, Room No.2 High Court are appointed ..;

as Joint Receivers with a direction to take possession of -:.;.
all material documents, films and materials connected with
the said programme. "Khoj Khabar' telecast on 12th March,
E 2004, 29th March, 2004 and 30th April, 2004 at 10.00 pm
and also copies of CD, if they are available in that office.
The Receiver shall make an enquiry as to whether these
~ ; cassettes have been distributed to any other person or
persons and to whom and the person in charge and/or the
F director of the first defendant, are directed to disclose by
~
making a statement before the Receiver whether any copy )'.

of CD has been distributd to any other person or persons
in any manner whatsoever or not. This matter is otherwise
disposed of."
G 9. The learned receivers who were supposed to have taken
.J.. ,-
prompt action failed and/or neglected do so. They did not visit
the office of the company for taking possession of the relevant
documents and the DV (wrongly stated in the order as CDs)
--
immediately after the said order was passed. It is stated at the
H Bar that the time for filing a report was extended.
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 797
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.
~
10. Appellants, however, contend that on 11.1.2006 some A
representatives of CECS visited their office and asked them to
handover all materials connected with the telecast. They were
allegedly threatened that if the materials were not handed over,
they would be in contempt.
11. This stand on the part of the appellant is, however, de- B
•- A nied and disputed by CESC.

.
'
It now stands admitted that a copy of the said order was
not s~rved on the appellants. No copy of the order was sent to
them by the respondent. Even the learned Joint Receivers did c
not intimate the ap.pellant about their appointment.

12. The Joint Receivers appointed by the High Court, how-
ever, visited ths office of the appellant on 14.1.2006. They asked
the appellants to hand over all the documents and CDs. As ac-
cording to the appellants such documents had already been D
.... handed over to the representatives of the CESC, they expressed
y-
their inability to do so. Minutes of meeting were recorded which
are to the following terms :
"In terms of the Hon'ble Courts order, we approached Mr.
Sanat Ray to handover the materials documents films
E
connected with the said programme telecast on
12.03.2004, 29.03.2004, 30.04.2004 at 10 am and also

.. the copies of the CDs and also enquired Mr. Ray regarding
the CD whether the has or his representative has been
distributed to any other person or persons in any manner.

We Joint receivers asked Mr. Ray to hand over the CDs,
F

films and materials for the above dates. Mr. S. Ray submits
that they never telecast any news through CD, they used
~o telecast through Cassettes (DV).
-;
G
• Mr. Ray further submits that they used to show the news
programme by DV Cassette only. Not by any film or CD
and they.did not have any films or documents or master
CD or Cassettes with him nor did he hand over did he has
hand over to any one. H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A All of us were taken to the Cassette Library by Mr. Ray, we
thoroughly checked each cassette and films and other *
documents in the said cassette Library Rooms. In presence
of the abovenamed person we did not find any CD of the
above dates, films, documents and cassettes. We have
B collected a new sealed cassette from the rack of the
cassette Library. It has been submitted by Mr. Ray that.
they used to telecast their daily programme through such
cassettes.
~ .
We the Joint Receivers tried our best to get the CD and ;,

c Cassettes, documents and films from Khoj Khabar Office
in presence of the plaintiff and their representative but
found nothing.
Mr. Ray further submits that on 11th January 2006 a group
of four persons who identified themselves as officers of
D
CESC and staff of Court came to Mr. Ray, and after showing
the Order of the Court dated 30.11.2005 took away the
Cassettes as Mr. Ray was perturbed he could not collect ~
..
the names of the persons and record their identity. This
has been done in presence of some stat of Khoj Khabar
E namely:
1. Mr. Shankar Saha who maintains the daily telecast
Register.
2. Mr. Ratan Das who maintains the Car records.
F
3.
4.
Mr. Rabi Shankar Saha, Assistant of Ratan Das, and
Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, Chief Cameraman.
)i.
•
However, Mr. Samar Ray lastly stated that he could
G recognize those aforesaid persons if he finds them."
13. The matter was placed before the learned Single Judge ,...__
on 18.1.2006. In view of the aforementioned minutes of meet- 4

ing, appellant No.3 herein (Sanat Kumar Ray) was asked to
affirm an affidavit as regards the events which purported to have
H taken place on 11.1.2006. An affidavit was affirmed.
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 799
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.
~-
14. In view of the said affidavit, vis-a-vis, the minutes of A
meeting prepared by the learned receivers and the stand taken
by the respondent company herein, trial was ordered on the
following issues by the learned Single Judge in terms of an or-
der dated 15.3.2006 :
"1. Whether any CECS official visited the office of Three B
Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. as alleged in
~ ,.J
paragraph 6 or not?
2. Whether material documents and material connected
with the programme Khoj Khabar and CDs and c
cassettes were handed over by the said deponent,
Sanat Ray CESC officials on 11 January, 2006?"
15. It is not in dispute now that having regard to the change
in determination, the trial has begun before another learned
Single Judge on and from 9.6.2006 and the same is yet to be D
•,
completed.
y
16. The contempt matter, however, keeping in view the pro-
visions contained in Rule 5 and 6 of the Contempt of Courts
(Calcutta High Court) Rules, 1975 was placed before the learned
E
Single Judge who had passed the order dated 30.11.2005.
17. The learned Judge proceeded to hear the contempt
matter on affidavits filed by the parties although the trial on the
aforementioned issues was incomplete.
18. Each one of the alleged contemnors was held guilty of F
" ·-;
contempt of court on the premise that they have violated the
directions issued to them to hand over the documents and DVD
Cassettes and other materials to the Joint Receiver.
19. Before taking note of the findings of the learned Judge, G
we may notice that in the contempt proceedings, the appellants,
.. inter alia, raised the following contentions :
"After examination and cross examination were over on
the aforesaid issues the present application for contempt
has been taken out on 25th of September, 2006. I am told H
...
'
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

"]l:
A that issue has not been decided nor there is fact findings
as to whereabouts of the DV (mother) cassettes. The
present application has been made for willful and
deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court on
30th November 2005 by not handing over DV (mother)
8 cassettes and other materials to the joint Receivers."
20. The plea of the appellants, therefore, was that even if -\._ \

they had committed an error in handing over the material and
DV to the representative of the CESC rather than the joint re-
ceivers, it was a bona fide one. They tendered unconditional
c apology therefor.
The learned Single Judge, however, as regards the plea
of the Director of the Company held :
"In my view he should not have left Calcutta until the order
D was carried out or if he had any urgent business he should
have approached this Court and asked for time for carrying +-
out order. From analysis as above it no doubt establishes x
his deliberate and willful violation of the order of the Court.
Therefore, I hold him guilty for committing contempt of the
E court as the DV (mother) cassettes were not handed over
to the Joint Receivers."
As regards, Shri Sanat Ray, it was opined :
"While examining the stand taken by the respondent No.4,
F I found that he is an over smart person and he has made
all possible effort to outwit the officers of the Court if not 'K <
Court itself. He is literate and English knowing person and
having complete understanding of the purport of the order.
In spite of that he had taken a stand at first that he allegedly
G
handed over DV cassettes to CESC officials being
accompanied by the Court officials, before Receiver and _J-.
then in his affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings as
.,
well as the affidavit filed earlier point of time after the visit
of the Receivers on 14th of January, 2006, he stated that
he handed ove( the same to CESC officials. This version
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 801
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.
'-}'
is unacceptable as none of the persons namely (1) Mr. A
Shankar Saha (2) Mr. Rattan Das (3) Mr. Rabi Shankar
Saha and (4) Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, has come toward to
corroborate testifying in Court that on 11th January 2006
CESC officials visited the office of the first respondent
and respondent No.4 handed over the DV (mother) B
cassettes to them. The CESC officials have denied the fact
j ~/,

of the visit on 11th January, 2006 which was a holiday. Thus,
CESC officials have also stated on oath in the trial on
evidence they did not visit on that date nor did they have
any occasion to visit on that date the office of the respondent c
No.1 as they were enjoying holidays. It is stranger no
suggestions was put to them by the learned counsel for Mr.
Sanat Kumar Ray that they did visit on that date and DV
(mother) cassettes were handed over to the CESC officials.
Therefore, it is clear that a concocted story has been made
D
out to justify their so called mistake in handing over."
y So far as the anchor, Krishna Kumar Mukherjee, is con-
cerned, it was held:
"As far as the respondent No.3 Krishna Kishore Mukherjee
is concerned, I am of the view that he was also responsible E
to see that the materials are handed over in terms of prayer
(c) to the Joint Receivers as the direction was also binding
~pon him. Had he had any difficulty he could have said this
by filing affidavit that he is not connected with the affairs
of the respondent No.1. He was the anchor of telecasting F
this programme so he had responsibility and should have
taken at least some measure to help the Receivers to
take possession of the DV (mother) cassettes remaining
present before the Receiver. So his act and conduct
amounts to aiding and abetting commission of contempt G
-}
of Court. I hold him also guilty for committing contempt of
• this Court."

21. An.appeal in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act was
preferred by the appellants before the Division Bench, urging :
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 1. Appellants became aware of the order of the Court ·+.-:
dated 30.11.2005 whereby the joint receivers were
appointed only on 10.1.2006 as the said order had
admittedly never been communicated to the
appellants, and thus, the question of any deliberate
B or willful violation thereof did not arise.
2. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the
I,., •
respondents had admitted that they had not served
any copy of the order to the appellant prior to
10.1.2006.
c
3. The findings of the learned Single that appellant No.3,
Sanat Roy, was over smart, literate and English
knowing was uncalled for as he has only deposed
before another Judge and, therefore, the learned
Judge had no occasion to note his demeanour.
D
4. The learned Trial Judge furthermore committed an error
in opining that none of the four persons who were - "'(
allegedly present had come forward to corroborate his
testimony, as the trial itself is incomplete.
E
5. The finding that no suggestion was put to them by
the learned counsel of Mr. Sanat Ray that some
personnels had visited their office on that date and
DV Cassettes were handed over to the CESC
officials is incorrect and such suggestions, in fact,
F had been given.
22. The Division Bench of the High Court entered into the
question as to whether the purported contempt committed by
the appellant was a civil contempt or criminal contempt, which
G was not necessary.
While affirming the judgment and order of the learned A--
Single Judge, however, the Division Bench opined : •
"It is well-known fact that the proceeding is only a form of
execution and it appears to us that on the given facts,
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 803
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

~ there is no criminality in the disobedience and the A
contempt, such as it is, is not criminal but the contemnors,
in our opinion, excepting the appellant in APOT No.126 of
2008, Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay, we hold that the
Hon'ble First Court correctly assessed the facts of the
case and held that they have committed contempt of court. 8
Hence, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere
' '{ with the order so passed by the Court and after analyzing
the decisions cited before us, we have not been able to
find out any clear distinction between 'civil' and 'criminal'
contempt and the contempt committed by the contemnors c
on the given facts cannot be broadly classified as criminal
contempt.
Hence, we uphold the said order and dismiss these appeal,
save and except, in our considered opinion, on the facts
D
of the case and the materials on record as placed before
~
us, we hold that a contempt in respect of the Krishna
-:r Kishore Mukhopadhyay cannot be proceeded with, since
on the given facts, with utmost respect to His Lordship we
come to the conclusion that the said Krishna Kishore
Mukhopadhyay, being the appellant in the other matter E
(APOT No.126 of 2008), cannot be said to be responsible
to hand over the materials to the Joint Receivers. Since
we are of the opinion that he had acted only on the date
of presentation of the said news telecasted on the said
date and, therefore, on the date of visit of the Joint F
.... 1 Receivers at the said premises to collect the mother
f
cassette, no role had to play by him to handover the said
cassette to the Joint Receivers."
23. Before adverting to consider the rival submissions of
G
the learned counsel for the parties, we may notice some subse-
~ quent events after this special leave petition was filed .
.,...
t{ Appellants appeared before the learned Single Judge on
22.8.2008 when a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on each of
them for the time being. Appellants undertook to produce the H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A CDs containing the programme in compliance of the order dated *-
14.3.2008. The learned Single Judge, in his order dated ·
29.8.2008, opined that the order dated 22.8.2008 has not suffi-
ciently been complied with and posted the matter for hearing
on 5.9.2008, stating :
B "They have also brought a compact disk of the offending
programme. According to me, this is not the material which
was asked to be handed over to the Receiver. So this is ~\. ...

not accepted by the Court. At least a pretended attempt
has been made to carry out the order of the Court. But I
c have not got any materials to come to a conclusion that
the same has been collected from Akash Bang la Channel.
Perhaps this can be copied from the programme already
telecast subsequent to passing of the order dated 22nd
.,,
August, 2008. I refuse to accept the same as being the
D materials which were asked to be produced in terms of
the earlier order. For this purpose, I adjourn this matter till
5th September, 2008. the contemnors will reappear again
on the next date at 3.00 p.m. once again. ~

E
! make it clear deposit of fine will be an ad hoc arrangement
and after having found that the order has been carried out
fully this Court will pass appropriate order.
After passing of the above order, it is submitted for the
first time on behalf of the contemnors that the name of the
F contemnor No.2, in whose name the Rule has been issued,
is not debojyoti Basu but it should be read as Dibyojyoti
Basu. I have checked the Permanent Account Number y .-,,-
Card of the contemnor No.2 and also the photograph '
appearing in the said card. I find similarity between the
G contemnor No.2 and the photograph and the name
appears in the said card is Dibyojyoti Basu. In view of the
revelation of the above fact I direct the learned Advocate- A-·
on-record of the contemnor No.2 to produce the papers ....
I

used before the Appeal Court. I also direct the Department ~

to produce the original affidavit-in-opposition used in the
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 805
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

contempt application by the aforesaid contemnor No.2 on A
the next date of hearing."
24. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned senior counsel appear-
ing on behalf of the appellants, submitted :
(1) That as trial on the issues framed by the learned B
Single Judge himself in terms of order dated
15.3.2006 is admittedly incomplete, punishment for
>- .~ alleged contempt of court could not have been
imposed without waiting for a finding of fact
thereupon. c
(2) In view of the terms of the order dated 30 .11 .2005 as
CDs, materials and documents were to be handed
over to the Joint Receivers, only if they were available
with them and as they were not available on
14.1.2006, appellants cannot be said to have D
committed contempt of the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 30.11.2005.
_,,, (3) The purpose and object of the order passed by the
High Court, as would appear from the Orders dated
E
17.5.2004 and 30.11.2004 being to restrain the
broadcast of the programme 'Khoj Khabar' and in
view of the admitted fact that there has been no
subsequent telecast of the programme and, thus,
the order of injunction having been complied with,
the judgment of conviction passed against the F
appellants is wholly unsustainable, particularly when
<
.... the said order dated 30.11.2005 was not even known
to the appellant prior to 10.1.2006.
(4) The Joint Receivers made a surprise visit only on G
14.1.2006 and having regard to the fact that nothing

.. +- had been suppressed from the High Court or the
Joint Receivers, a case for initiating a proceeding
under the Act was not made out. In any event, as the
trial is incomplete wherein the four witnesses are yet
H
·-
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. ._

A to depose with regard to the events which took place
on 11.1.2006, the High Court committed an illegality
~ t
...
in passing the impugned judgment.
25. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents would, however, support the impugned >--
B judgment. It was contended that although the categorical stand I

taken by the contemnors-respondents before the learned Single
Judge was that no DV Cassettes were available with them when 'J.., -' I
the Joint Receiver visited their office on 14.1.2006, they pur- I
I-
ported to produce the same before the learned Single Judge.
c on 29.8.2008, which were not the original CDs, it has rightly ~
been found that misrepresentations had been made at all lev-
els by the alleged contemnors and, thus, this Court should not l
~

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. L
\-
D
26. Civil contempt has been defined in Section 2(a) of the
Act to mean:
l-,.
"b) 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any ~

judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
E of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a
court;"
~
27. Herein appellants are charged with commission of con-
tempt of the High Court on two counts that: (1) they did not hand r.
,---
'
over the materials to the Joint Receiver; and (2) they affirmed a
F false affidavit regarding the events on 11.1.2006. '·-
J
The High Court failed to notice that a learned Single Judge f'- >:

of the High Court passed an interim order only in terms of 1
t-
prayers 'a' and 'b'. It is not a case of the respondent that the I-
G appellants have violated the terms of the said ex parte ad in- I
I
terim order. Assuming that some lawyer had appeared on be- i
half of the respondents on earlier dates, the learned Judge him-
self had noticed that the appellants were not represented on
_A--
.. )-

date when the order appointing Receiver was passed. I-
I
>-
H 28. In the aforementioned premise, it was obligatory on
THREE CHEERS Ef\JTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 807
-0( & ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

the part of the respondents and/or the High Court itself to com- A
municate the said order to the appellants. The High Court ap-
pears to have proceeded on the presumption that the appel-
!ants were aware thereof despite a categorical stand taken by
respondent itself that the said order had not been served. We
do not find from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that 8
,> -I: even the High Court communicated the order to the appellant
which course ordinarily should have been resorted to.
29. We fail to understand as to on what basis, the Joint
Receivers were appointed. No prayer was made therefor on
the said date. No application was filed. The matter was placed c
before the learned Single Judge only for confirmation of the ad
interim order passed and not for deciding on the prayer (c) con-
cerned. A bare perusal of the said order would clearly indicate
that even a prima facie finding had not been arrived at warrant-
ing appointment of receiver. No reason has been assigned in D
-;o--' support thereof. No jurisdictional fact that it was just and proper
to appoint a receiver as is required under Order XL Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure was recorded far less why the same
was found to be necessary and emergent. In any event, a show-
cause notice at the first instance should have been issued. E
30. When the receivers were appointed, no question arose
to issue any direction upon the appellants. In fact, no such di-
rection had been issued asking them to hand over all docu-
ments, papers and CDs.
-I F
31. Mr. Rao, on a querry made by us contended that the
issues were framed on 15.3.2006 in the main suit. The said
contention does not appear to be correct. The proceedings
started only on the basis of the minutes of meeting dated
14.1.2006 presented by the Joint Receivers before the High
. '1- G
~ Court. The enquiiy was directed for the purpose of finding out
as to whether the CECS officials had indeed visited the office
of the company on 11.1.2006 and whether the CDs and cas..:
settes had been handed over by the said Shri Sanat Ray to its
officials or not. It may be a step for initiation of a contempt pro-
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.
')(:-
A ceeding but such a trial was being conducted for the purpose of
finding out the truth as to whether the court's order dated
30 .11.2005 had, in fact, been violated or not. If a finding of fact
was necessary to be arrived as for ascertaining as to whether
the contemnors-respondents have violated the order of the court,
B it is difficult to comprehend why the trial was not allowed to be
completed. ,'
~. •.

Indisputably, the majesty of the Court is required to be up-
held. The Court must see that its orders are complied with. But l
for the said purpose, a roving enquiry is not permissible. '
c
Several proceedings which seek to achieve the same
purpose are unknown to the process of law. If the trial was to be
held on the issues framed by the learned Single Judge, it should
have been allowed to be brought to its logical conclusion. When
the trial was incomplete, we fail to see any reason why the con-
D
tempt proceeding was heard on affidavits. Even if that was done,
reliance was sought to be placed on the depositions of the wit- ~

nesses in the said enquiry, which was admittedly incomplete.
Witnesses affirming affidavits before the learned Single Judge
were not being cross-examined so as to enable the counsel for
E the parties to draw their attention to the earlier statement made
by them in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. r
;.

32. On what basis comments against Sanat Rai were
made that he was 'over smart person' although he did not ex-
~
F amine himself before the learned Single Judge is not known. It
y·
will bear repetition to state that on the one hand the witnesses
in support of the said statement of the said Shri Sanat Ray was
yet to be examined in the trial and on the other hand the learned
Judge commented that his testimony remained uncorroborated.
Attention of the learned Judge furthermore was not drawn to the
G
Question No.25 which was put to Shri Aditya Goswami who ex- .Jr- '
'('."""
amined himself on behalf of CECS and Question No.20 put to
Shri Anil Chatterjee, which are as under:
"25. As regards incident dated 11.1.2006 when it has been
H said by the defendant that CESC personnel took away
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 809
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.
~
the cassettes from their office - what is your comment A
about the same?
Actually, I am the dealing officer, I was entrusted with this
case. I know that I am the only one who is entrusted so I
know the fact, except myself nod body would possibly visit
the office of the Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and B
> ~ furthermore on 11.1.2006 it was the holiday under the NI
Act on account of ld-ul-Juha. CESC office was closed on
that date.
xxx xxx xxx c
20. Can you say on authority that on 11th January, 2006
none from the CESC office went to the office of the
defendant?
I can say upto where my knowledge goes nothing beyond
D
that."
~
33. The Division Bench of the High Court, unfortunately,
did not bestow its consideration on these vital aspects of the
matter.
E
No sufficient or cogent reason has been a~signed therein.
The purpose and object of initiation of a proce'eding under the
provisions of the said Act is only to see that the order of the
Court is complied with and not to unnecessarily proceed against
persons as if they are petty criminals. We are pained to notice
/{ that even the Director of the company who was not in town was F
hauled up for contempt opining that he should not have left
Calcutta until the order was carried out or if he had any urgent
business, he should have approached the court and asked for
time for carrying out the ord~r. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the appel- G
,..,. - -+--- lants were directed to hand over the materials, documents, film
scripts and materials connected with the telecast 'Khoj Khabar';,
it was not so. We have furthermore noticed hereinbefore that
the Court even did not bother to see that the order of the court
was intimated to the appellants. Why the order dated 30.11.2005 H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
'"')<--·
A was not made known to the appellants till 10.1.2006 is baffling
and despite the same it was observed that the said order was ..._
I'-
within the specific knowledge of the appellants. In our opinion, '
the facts and materials placed before us do not establish that
there was any willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on
B the part of the appellant.
34. Mr. Rao, when asked, failed to satisfy us that the rules Y..... •
framed by the High Court had been complied with. If the trial
had begun with a view to find as to whether the statement of the
appellant that he had handed over the materials to the CECS
c officials was correct or not, why .another proceeding should be
initiated simultaneously before another learned Judge is be-
yond anybody's comprehension.
Contempt of court is a matter which deserves to be dealt
with all seriousness. "'
I

D
In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman & ~

Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 739], this Court held :
"13. Before however, proceeding with the matter any }.
further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the
E
Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious
and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to the
true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The court must
otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct
complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which
F if allowed, would even permeate in our society (vide ~

Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia). This is a special
jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an
offender for his contemptuoµs conduct or obstruction the
majesty of law."
G _,..;.- -
In Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC ·~
530], this Court held that a contempt of court proceeding being
quasi criminal in nature, the burden to prove would be upon the
person who made such an allegation. A person cannot be sen-
tenced on mere probability. Willful disobedience and contuma-
H
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 811
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

cious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be pun- A
-':x: ished. Such a finding cannot be arrived at on ipse dixit of the
court. It must be arrived at on the materials brought on record
by the parties.
Yet again in Anif Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh &
Ors. [(2002) (4) SCC 21], it was opined : B

"15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere
> ...i, disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount
to a 'civil contempt' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of
the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an c
indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within
the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two
interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged
c0ntemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act or
acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in
D
nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the willful nature
of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt
petition would not arise."
-~

In Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Oas & Ors. [(2004)
(4) SCC 573], after noticing various provisions of the Calcutta E
High Court Rules held :
"The Court may, however, in a contempt proceeding take
such evidence as may be considered necessary.
Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it seems
F

.. 7
that neither was any notice of contempt issued to the
appellant nor any hearing took place except what has been
noticed hereinbefore.
The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be
exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act
G
adversely affects the administration of justice or which

... • tends to impede its course or tends to shake public
confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may
also be exercised when the act complained of adversely
affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty
::;).(-
and dignity of the courts of law. (See Supreme Court Bar
Assn. v. Union of India)."
Recently in Sushi/a Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.) [2008
(7) SCALE 484], this Court held :
B
"It is a well settled principle of law that if two interpretations
are possible of the order which is ambiguous, a contempt
proceeding would not be maintainable." )-, -<

It was furthermore opined that the effect and purport of the
c order should be taken into consideration and the same must be
read in its entirety.
35. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great re-
spect, did not advert to any of the aforementioned contentions
of the appellant.
D
36. Although, it was not necessary for us to advert to the
subsequent events, Mr. Rao himself has sought to draw inspi-
rations from the subsequent conduct of the parties impelling us ,....-
to refer the same.
E
If Appellants have been found to be guilty of commission
of contempt, they should have been punished on the same day.
Why the extra ordinary procedure of asking them to appear on
another day for hearing on quantum of sentence was adopted
is not understood. They had not been asked to purge their con-
F tempt. They made a voluntary statement that they would pro-
duce the CDs which should have been taken at its face value or ...
'>!'-
should have been rejected.
We also do not appreciate ttiat a fine of Rs.10,000/- was
G imposed upon the appellants by an order dated 22.8.2008 'for
the time being'. We have not been shown any provision in the
Act or any precedent that a court may impose sentences upon
~
the contemnors in piece meal. ...
So far as the submission of Mr. Rao that original cassettes
H have not been produced is concerned, we must notice that what
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 813
& ORS. v. C.E.S.C. LTD.

was produced by the appellants was the CDs taken from (ETV A
-)/( Bangla). What has been produced before the learned Single
Judge on 291h August were not the DV Cassettes which Sanat
Rai stated to have been parted with on 11.1.2006.
37. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judg-
ment cannot be sustained. It is set aside. Consequently, the or- 8
ders dated 30.11.2005 and 22.8.2008 are also set aside.
~ _,,1, The High Court, in our opinion, would be well advised to
take up hearing of the suit as expeditiously as possible. If no-
tice of suit has not been served upon the company, it may be c
done forthwith. The company may file its written statement, if
not already done, within three weeks from the date.
38. As ord~rs of injunctions in terms of Prayer 'a' and 'b'
are in operation and CDs are already in possession of the court,
we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Con- 0
stitution of India direct that the contempt proceedings itself be
dropped. The amount of fine deposited by the appellants should
be refunded by the High Court forthwith.
39. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned direc- E
tions with costs payable by Respondent No.1 to the West Ben-
gal State Legal Services Authority, Calcutta. Counsel's fee as-
sessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed