0

A contemnor does not continue to reap the benefits of his disobedience by simply suffering the punishment meted out to him: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , ,

Case title: Amit Kumar Das Vs Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust.

Case no.: SLP (Civil) no. 34892 of 2014

Decided on: 30.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal rests on the high court divisional bench’s contempt proceedings for the contemnor’s act, which was not only illegal and invalid but also deliberate disobedience to the stay order issued in the first appeal. The Division Bench decided that lifting the stay order from the first appeal would be more justifiable than initiating contempt proceedings.

The problem started when the respondent filed a lawsuit seeking property damage, possession recovery, and title declaration. The possession suit has a ruling from the court. The appellant then filed an appeal in the high court after the respondent filed an execution petition.

On March 3, 2010, the high court issued a stay order and told the appellant to deposit the amount of 10 lakhs within two months.

ISSUES:

Is it correct for the court to lift the stay in order to bring forth contempt proceedings?

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction precluded it from reversing the stay order issued in the appeal. He would point out that the High Court shouldn’t have used this tactic in the contempt case and that the Trust didn’t take any action to request such relief in the appeal.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

Respondent trust argued that the stay order dated 03.03.2010 in the appeal stood vacated automatically in terms of order thereof, as there was a default in the making of deposits as directed in the earlier clauses, and therefore the impugned order does not warrant interference at this stage.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court referred to the cases of Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. The courts upheld a principle in these rulings: in addition to penalising a contemnor for disobeying its commands, the Court may make sure that the contemnor does not continue to profit from his disobedience by simply receiving the punishment that has been meted out to him.

The court in this case determined that because of the particular facts of this case, the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction in vacating the stay order in the appeal did not take on a restitutive or remedial nature. Even the High Court found that the stay order’s status quo condition had been fully violated, and vacating the order had no effect on returning the parties to their pre-violation positions or denying the contemnor the benefit of the already-concluded disobedience.

It is evident that the High Court’s action exceeded the limits of its contempt jurisdiction, and it is therefore unsupportable. In that sense, the contested order is revoked. We believe it is appropriate to remand the case to the High Court so that it can continue with the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, as we have now set aside the High Court’s alternative course of action, even though the High Court refrained from doing so due to this misguided measure, even though it found the contemnor guilty of wilfully violating the status quo condition in the stay order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click to read the judgement

0

Contempt Application Against Central Government for Alleged Non-Compliance in ‘Padma Awardees’ Endorsement Case

Blog ,

Title: Moti Lal Yadav vs. Sri Rajiv Gowba & Another

Date of Decision: October 9, 2023

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2833 of 2023

CORAM Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Introduction

This case revolves around a contempt application filed by Mr. Moti Lal Yadav against Sri Rajiv Gowba, Cabinet Secretary of the Central Government of India, and another party. The contempt application is based on the alleged non-compliance of an earlier order passed by the court, which was issued in the context of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Yadav concerning the participation of ‘Padma Awardees’ in endorsements of products harmful to public health. The PIL requested the Central Consumer Protection Authority to take action against the involved celebrities. This judgment reviews the proceedings related to the contempt application.

 

Facts of the Case

Mr. Moti Lal Yadav, a practicing lawyer, filed a PIL in 2022, raising concerns about ‘Padma Awardees’ participating in advertisements for products harmful to public health.

The PIL sought the Central Consumer Protection Authority to impose penalties on the celebrities involved in these advertisements and to have them deposit their earnings into the relief fund of the Government of India.

The court’s earlier order, dated 22.09.2022, directed Mr. Yadav to approach the Central Government, specifically the Cabinet Secretary, and make representations regarding the conduct of ‘Padma Awardees’ and their participation in misleading advertisements.

Mr. Yadav complied with the court’s order and submitted representations to the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

However, the authorities did not take any action, leading Mr. Yadav to file a contempt application, claiming non-compliance with the court’s order.

 

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court reviewed Mr. Yadav’s actions in compliance with the court’s earlier order. He had submitted representations to the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. Additionally, notices were issued to certain Pan Masala companies by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The court noted that while Mr. Yadav had initiated the process of compliance with the order by approaching the relevant authorities, the response and actions taken by these authorities were not detailed in the contempt application. The court recognized that certain steps had been taken, but it required further information and clarification on the actions or decisions made by these authorities regarding the issues raised in the PIL.

The court emphasized that, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a comprehensive statutory mechanism exists for addressing grievances related to consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and false or misleading advertisements. This mechanism allows for actions against individuals and companies involved in such practices. The court concluded that the matter required consideration and, therefore, directed notices to be issued to the opposite parties. These notices demanded an explanation as to why full compliance with the court’s order had not been achieved. The court also gave Mr. Yadav the opportunity to file a reply or objection to the affidavit of compliance submitted by the Central Government’s counsel. The case was listed for the next hearing on November 29, 2023, with the expectation that further information and responses from the authorities would be provided by that date.

In summary, the court recognized that Mr. Yadav had initiated compliance with the court’s order, but further details and actions taken by the authorities were required to determine full compliance. The court also highlighted the availability of statutory mechanisms to address issues related to consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements. The case would continue to be heard to assess the extent of compliance with the court’s order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Tarishi Verma

Click to view judgement