# Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 753
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-29
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subhash-chandra-v-srikant-goswami-ors-52436
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Sri Akber
Ahmad, Sri Prashant Puri and Ms. Shhreiya
Agarwal, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Special
Appeal-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952-Chapter
VIII
Rule
5Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
19(1)- Challenge to-Maintainability of an
intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952-The respondents raised objections
to the maintainability of the appeal as the
Act bars appeals against orders disposing
of or dropping contempt proceedings-The
appellant claimed that the High Court's
inherent power in contempt matters,
being sui generis in nature, allow for an
intra-court appeal-Held, no appeal lies
against orders dismissing or dropping
contempt
proceedings
without
punishment-The Act is a self contained
code, and general provisions for intracourt appeals under Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952, do not override this statutory
limitation-Therefore,
a
contempt
petitioner cannot file an appeal against an
order where the court finds substantial
compliance and dismisses the contempt
petition.(Para 1 to 71)

If the High Court, for whatsoever reason,
decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in intra-court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra-court
appeal), or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India (in other cases).
(Para 57)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 108,633. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
753
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 753
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023

Subhash Chandra ...Appellant
Versus
Srikant Goswami & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sharad Pathak assisted by Sri Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Sri Akber
Ahmad, Sri Prashant Puri and Ms. Shhreiya
Agarwal, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Special
Appeal-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952-Chapter
VIII
Rule
5Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
19(1)- Challenge to-Maintainability of an
intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952-The respondents raised objections
to the maintainability of the appeal as the
Act bars appeals against orders disposing
of or dropping contempt proceedings-The
appellant claimed that the High Court's
inherent power in contempt matters,
being sui generis in nature, allow for an
intra-court appeal-Held, no appeal lies
against orders dismissing or dropping
contempt
proceedings
without
punishment-The Act is a self contained
code, and general provisions for intracourt appeals under Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952, do not override this statutory
limitation-Therefore,
a
contempt
petitioner cannot file an appeal against an
order where the court finds substantial
compliance and dismisses the contempt
petition.(Para 1 to 71)

If the High Court, for whatsoever reason,
decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in intra-court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra-court
appeal), or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India (in other cases).
(Para 57)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jagdamba Prasad Vs Balgovind & ors. Neu.
Cit. No. (2016) : AHC: 77023-DB

2. Hub Lal Yadav Vs Mahendra & ors. (2017)
ADJ Online 0638

3. Ch. Shyam Sunder Vs Daw Dayal Khanna
(1955) SCC OnLine All 186

4. Shah Babu Lal Khemji Vs J.D. Kania & anr.
(1981) 4 SCC 8

5. Manohar Lal Vs Prem Shankar (1959) SCC
OnLine All 130

6. Maninderjeet Singh Bitta Vs U.O.I. (2012) 1
SCC 273

7. Rajit Ram Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2024) 7
ADJ 747 FB

8. Mednapore People's Coop. Vs Cunilal Nanda &
ors.(2006) 5 SCC 399

9. C/M Madarsa Ehle-E-Sunnat Vs Prakash Singh
& ors.(2016) SCC Online Alld. 34-38

10. C/M Smt. Dulhin Rajdhari Kunwari Kanya Jr.
High Scl. Vs Dinesh Chandra Kannaujia &
anr.(SAPL No. 303 of 2010)

11. Shivam Das Chandani & ors. Vs Prabhu N.
Singh & ors.(2022) 3 ADJ 275 LB DB 03
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. Roop Singh Vs Shri Vinay Kumar Johari &
ors.(2020) 8 ADJ 519 DB

13. Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Pawan Kumar Singh &
ors.(2015) SCC OnLine All 3660

14. Amit Mohan Prasad Vs Naresh Babu Tiwari &
ors.(SAPL No. 135 of 2022)

15.
Ashwani
Kumar
Vs
St.
of
U.P.
&
ors.MANU/UP/2577/2022

16. Alld. Bank Vs Canara Bank (2000) 4 SCC 406

17. Ashutosh Shrotiya & ors. Vs V.C. Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar Univ. & ors.(2015) SCC Online Alld
8553 FB

18. Ram Kishan Fauji Vs St. of Haryana (2017) 5
SCC 533

19. Ajay Kumar Bhalla Vs Prakash Kumar Dixit
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1874

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. More often than not this Court is
recurringly vexed with an issue of seminal
importance relating to the maintainability
of an intra-court appeal filed under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the
'Rules
of
the
Court')
from
orders
emanating from contempt proceedings.

2. This intra-court appeal too, has
been filed by the appellant, who was the
petitioner before the Contempt Court, being
aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023
passed in Contempt Application (civil)
2200 of 2016 (Subhash Chandra Vs. Shri
Srikant
Goswami
MD.
U.P.
Sahkari
Gramin Vikas Ltd.) whereby the Contempt
Court finally disposed of the contempt
petition holding that there was substantial
compliance of the judgment and order
dated 10.08.2016 passed by the writ court
and it also gave liberty to the contemptpetitioner that in case if he was aggrieved
by
the
order
of
compliance
dated
22.05.2024,
he
could
approach
the
appropriate Forum.

3. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the respondents at the outset
had
raised
a
preliminary
objection
regarding maintainability of the instant
intra-court appeal on the ground that in
light of Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act of 1971), the contempt appeal will
only lie against an order passed by the
Contempt Court awarding a punishment to
a contemnor. This necessarily implies that
an appeal can only be filed by a person who
is a respondent in the contempt proceedings
and not by one who is petitioner in the
contempt proceedings.

4. In the instant case, it is pointed
out that since the Contempt Court found
that substantial compliance of the order
passed by the writ court had been made,
hence, the Contempt Court did not find it
worthwhile to proceed, consequently, the
proceedings were dropped, leaving it open
for the Contempt-petitioner, if aggrieved
against the order of compliance to raise his
grievance before the appropriate Forum.

5. It has further been urged that the
Act of 1971 is a Special Act which
envisages a Forum of appeal only in terms
of Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1971 and it
does not contemplate filing of an appeal
against an order whereby the contempt
proceedings are disposed of or dropped or
dismissed. In such circumstances where the
appeal in terms of Section 19 (1) of the Act
of 1971 is not maintainable then the
appellant herein in the garb of an intracourt appeal cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of this Court to achieve something
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
755
indirectly which is prohibited by the Act of
1971, directly.

6. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the respondents has further
urged that the only remedy which is
available to the contempt-petitioner against
an order refusing to initiate contempt
proceedings,
dropping
contempt
proceedings
or
dismissing
contempt
proceedings is to approach the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

7. It has also been submitted that
since the object of the Act of 1971 is to
regulate the manner in which the Contempt
Court exercises its powers, which primarily
inheres in every High Court by virtue of it
being a court of record, and thus the Act of
1971 be treated as a special Act vis-a-vis
the High Court Rules of 1952 which in this
case be treated as the general law under
which the intra-court appeal is filed.

8. The thrust of the submission is
that once a special act which governs the
subject and prohibits or restricts a right of
appeal, which needless to say is a creature
of a statute, then the general law must give
way to the special law and for the aforesaid
reason, the intra-court appeal against an
order dismissing the contempt petition
would not be maintainable.

9. It is further submitted that this
issue has been raised before this Court in a
number
of
cases
and
it
has
been
consistently held that an intra-court appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court against an order dismissing or
disposing of contempt petition is not
maintainable
consequently
the
instant
appeal be dismissed as not maintainable.
10. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel
for the respondents in order to buttress his
submissions has relied upon the following
decisions :- (i) Jagdamba Prasad Vs.
Balgovind and 10 Others Neutral Citation
No. - 2016:AHC:77023-DB; (ii) Sheo
Charan Vs. Naval and Others 1997 SCC
OnLine All 1136; (iii) Hub Lal Yadav Vs.
Mahendra and Others 2017 ADJOnline
0638; (iv) Vinod Kumar Gupta and Another
Vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, SDM and
Another 2023(7) ADJ 107 (DB); (v)
Midnapore
Peoples
Cooperative
Vs.
Chunni Lal Nanda and Others (2006) 5
SCC 399; (vi) D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal
and others (1988) 3 SCC 26; (vii) State of
Maharasthra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and
Another (1996) 4 SCC 411 (viii) Fuerest
Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.
(2011) 8 SCC 333.

11. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel for the appellant responding and
refuting
the
aforesaid
preliminary
objections has urged that the contempt
proceeding which are initiated by the High
Court is neither civil nor criminal in nature
rather it is in exercise of its jurisdiction 'sui
generis'. He further urges that the bar
which is mentioned in Chapter VIII Rule 5
of the Rules of the Court is not attracted as
an order passed by the Contempt Court is
primarily an order passed by the High
Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction
which is inherent in the High Court by
virtue of it being a court of record and thus
an intra-court appeal is maintainable.

12.

Sri
Pathak
taking
his
submissions forward has submitted that
even if at all, it is assumed that an intracourt appeal may not be maintainable
against an order dismissing the contempt
petition but the fact still remains that if a
Contempt Judge in any manner touches the
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merit of the claim or issues fresh directions
or dilutes a direction already issued then
such part of the order cannot be treated to
be an order passed in the contempt
jurisdiction and thus that part of the order
would be without jurisdiction and to that
extent, an intra-court appeal would be
maintainable.

13. Sri Pathak, has further
submitted that a 'judgment' passed by a
Court has certain well settled connotations
in law. Even if at all, in cases where under
the Rules of the Court, an intra-court
appeal is not specifically provided then in
such circumstances, the Court would be
justified in taking recourse to the specific
provisions in contemporaneous statutes.
Elaborating his submissions, he urged that
even though there was no provision which
limits the exercise of original jurisdiction
by the High Court in contempt proceedings
but even if at all the Act of 1971 is
considered
to
limit
the
exercise
of
jurisdiction to some extent in so far as
filing of an appeal is concerned yet the
same would not create an embargo for the
High Court to take recourse to the Rules of
the Court to effectively exercise its
appellate jurisdiction and power which are
rather widened by the Rules of the Court.
He further contends that Section 19 of the
Act of 1971 in no manner overrides or
controls the powers of the High Court
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court and thus even if an appeal may
not lie in terms of Section 19 of the Act of
1971 but an intra-court appeal would
definitely be maintainable. He has heavily
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in Shah Babu Lal Khemji Vs. J.D. Kania
and Another (1981) 4 SCC 8.

14. Sri Pathak has further
submitted that if the decision of the Apex
Court in Midnapore (Supra), which is
cited by the other side, is considered, it
would reveal that the questions which were
framed by the Apex Court have been
clearly answered in Paragraph 11 which is
to be read as a whole. He has further drawn
the attention of the Court to Paragraph
11(V) of the Midnapore (supra) decision
and it is urged that the Apex Court has
clearly held that if the High Court for
whatever reason decides an 'issue' or
'makes any direction relating to the merits
of the disputes between the parties', in
contempt proceedings, then the aggrieved
party is not without a remedy. Such a party
can challenge the same in an intra-court
appeal if there is a provision for such an
appeal.

15. It is thus submitted that the
Apex Court has clarified that where the
contempt Court touches the 'merit' or
'decides an issue' then an intra-court appeal
would lie and in the instant case, the said
proposition is being pressed into service to
contend that the Contempt Court by
entering into the question as to whether the
compliance has been made or not has held
that there is substantial compliance and this
has diluted the order passed by the writ
court in the first instance which stood
affirmed up to the Apex Court. In these
circumstances, where the Contempt Court
has diluted the directions of the writ court,
which was affirmed by the Apex Court and
by holding that the Authorities had
substantially complied with the order
amounts examining the matter on merits,
hence,
such
an
order
is
definitely
susceptible to challenge in an intra-court
appeal.

16. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons,
it is submitted that neither the rules of the
Court
prohibits
the
institution
and
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
757
consideration of the intra-court appeal on
merits nor there can be any embargo on the
power of the Court to entertain an intracourt appeal arising out of contempt
proceedings which are original in nature
and can neither be termed as civil or
criminal rather is sui generis.

17. Sri Pathak in support of his
submissions has relied upon the following
decisions:- (i) Ch. Shyam Sunder v. Daw
Dayal Khanna, 1955 SCC OnLine All 186;
(ii) Manohar Lal v. Prem Shanker, 1959 SCC
OnLine All 130; (iii) Maninderjeet Singh
Bitta Vs. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273;
(iv) Shah Babulal Khemji Vs. J.D. Kania and
Another (1981) 4 SCC 8; (v)Rajit Ram Yadav
Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2024 (7) ADJ
747
(FB);
(vi)
Mednapore
Peoples'
Cooperation Vs. Cunilal Nanda and Others
(2006) 5 SCC 399; (vii) Special Deputy
Director Vs. N. Vasudeva & Others (2007) 14
SCC 165; (viii) Committee of Management
Madarsa Ehle-E-Sunnat Vs. Prakash Singh
and Others (2016) SCC Online Allahabad 3438; (ix) Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Pawan Kumar
Singh and Others 2015 SCC Online All 3660;
(x) Daya Nand Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
Others 2022 SCC Online All 598; (xi) Amit
Mohan Prasad Vs. Naresh Babu Tiwari &
Others, Special Appeal No. 135 of 2022; (xii)
Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others
MANU/UP/2577/2022.

18. The Court has heard the
learned counsel for the parties at length and
has also perused the material on record.

19. Before proceeding further, it
will be relevant to notice an order in the
instant case passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court dated 22.04.2024 and the
relevant portion of the said order reads as
under:-

"Now, the order impugned
herein has been passed by the High
Court in exercise of its contempt
jurisdiction under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
which is a central enactment. It is
referable to entry 14 of the
concurrent list, therefore, to this
extent there is no difficulty i.e. if it
is found that this is an order passed
in exercise of criminal jurisdiction
by the High Court, then, this appeal
would fall within the exception
made in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,
however, if it is found that contempt
jurisdiction
exercised
by
the
learned Judge of the High Court
while passing the impugned order,
does not fall within the meaning of
the words "in the exercise of
criminal
jurisdiction"
used
in
Chapter VIII Rule 5, then, the
position would be different subject
of course to there being other
issues involved and authorities
thereon as also the submissions to
be made by the learned counsel for
the parties.
The question is whether the
aforesaid words- "in the exercise of
criminal jurisdiction" refer to the
jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court on the criminal side under
the Code of Criminal Procedure or
any other law falling in the
criminal field or would it include
the
exercise
of
contempt
jurisdiction which is termed as
quasi
criminal
proceeding/jurisdiction.
Whether
these words will include the quasi
criminal jurisdiction of a contempt
Court of the High Court."
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. In light of the tentative
observations noted above, this Court will
consider the nature of the proceedings
exercised by the High Court in its contempt
jurisdiction inter alia to adjudge the issue of
maintainability of the instant appeal in light
of the rival submissions.

21. At this stage, it will be apposite
to take a glace at the relevant provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which
have an interplay and have some bearing on
the controversy involved in the instant
intra-court appeal.

22. For the ease of the reference,
relevant provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 are being reproduced
hereinafter:-

"2. Definitions.-In this
Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(a) "contempt of court"
means civil contempt or criminal
contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means
wilful
disobedience
to
any
judgment, decree, direction, order,
writ or other process of a court or
wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;
(c) "criminal contempt"
means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations,
or otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever
which- (i) scandalises or tends to
scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or
tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding;
or (iii) interferes or tends to
interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner;
(d) "High Court" means
the High Court for a State or a
Union territory, and includes the
court of the Judicial Commissioner
in any Union territory.
10. Power of High Court
to
punish
contempts
of
subordinate courts.- Every High
Court shall have and exercise the
same jurisdiction, powers and
authority, in accordance with the
same procedure and practice, in
respect of contempts of courts
subordinate to it as it has and
exercises in respect of contempts of
itself: Provided that no High Court
shall take cognizance of a contempt
alleged to have been committed in
respect of a court subordinate to it
where such contempt is an offence
punishable under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
11. Power of High Court to
try
offences
committed
or
offenders
found
outside
jurisdiction.-A High Court shall
have jurisdiction to inquire into or
try a contempt of itself or of any
court subordinate to it, whether the
contempt is alleged to have been
committed within or outside the
local limits of its jurisdiction, and
whether the person alleged to be
guilty of contempt is within or
outside such limits.
12.
Punishment
for
contempt of court.-(1) Save as
otherwise expressly provided in this
Act or in any other law, a contempt
of court may be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
759
which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused
may
be
discharged
or
the
punishment
awarded
may
be
remitted on apology being made to
the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation.-An apology
shall not be rejected merely on the
ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it
bona fide.
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, no court
shall impose a sentence in excess of
that specified in sub-section(1) for
any contempt either in respect of
itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in this section,
where a person is found guilty of a
civil contempt, the court, if it
considers that a fine will not meet
the ends of justice and that a
sentence
of
imprisonment
is
necessary
shall,
instead
of
sentencing
him
to
simple
imprisonment, direct that he be
detained in a civil prison for such
period not exceeding six months as
it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found
guilty of contempt of court in
respect of any undertaking given to
a court is a company, every person
who, at the time the contempt was
committed, was in charge of, and
was responsible to, the company
for the conduct of the business of
the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be
guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced with
the leave of the court, by the
detention in civil prison of each
such person:
Provided
that
nothing
contained in this sub-section shall
render any such person liable to
such punishment if he proves that
the
contempt
was
committed
without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.
(5)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section
(4), where the contempt of court
referred
to
therein
has
been
committed by a company and it is
proved that the contempt has been
committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to
any neglect on the part of, any
director, manager, secretary or
other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or
other officer shall also be deemed
to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with
the leave of the court, by the
detention in civil prison of such
director, manager, secretary or
other officer.
Explanation.-For
the
purpose of sub-sections (4) and
(5),-
(a) "company" means any
body corporate and includes a firm
or other association of individuals;
and
(b) "director", in relation
to a firm, means a partner in the
firm.
19.
Appeals.-(1)
An
appeal shall lie as of right from any
order or decision of High Court in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt-
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(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
Supreme Court:
Provided that where the
order or decision is that of the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner
in any Union territory, such appeal
shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the
appellate Court may order that-
(a) the execution of the
punishment or order appealed
against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in
confinement, he be released on
bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard
notwithstanding that the appellant
has not purged his contempt.
(3)
Where
any
person
aggrieved by any order against
which an appeal may be filed
satisfies the High Court that he
intends to prefer an appeal, the
High Court may also exercise all or
any of the powers conferred by subsection (2).
(4) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be filed-

(a) in the case of an appeal
to a Bench of the High Court,
within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal
to the Supreme Court, within sixty
days, from the date of the order
appealed against.

23. The High Court in order to
regulate the presentation and hearing of
contempt proceedings has framed rules
contained in Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules
of the Court, 1952 which read as under:-

"1. Introduction :- The
Rules contained in this Chapter
shall
govern
presentation
and
hearing of Contempt of Court cases
coming to this High Court under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. Nature of contempt to
be indicated :- Every application,
reference or motion for taking
proceedings under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 shall mention at
the head whether it relates to the
Commission of 'Civil Contempt' or
'Criminal Contempt' :
Provided that, if there are
allegations both of commission of
Civil
Contempt
and
Criminal
Contempt
against
the
same
person/persons,
two
separate
applications shall be moved, one
dealing with Civil Contempt and
the other with Criminal Contempt.
3. Facts to be stated in the
motion or reference:- (1) Every
such motion or reference made
under Section 15 (1) of the Act
shall contain in precise language
the statement setting forth the facts
constituting the contempt of which
the person charged is alleged to be
guilty and shall specify the date or
dates on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed.
(2) Every motion made by
the Advocate General under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Act
shall state the allegations of facts
and the view of the informant that
in relation to these facts contempt
appears to have been committed of
which the Court should take
cognizance and take further action.
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
761
The
motion
should
contain
sufficient material to indicate why
the Advocate General is inclined to
move the court.
(3) (a) A petition for taking
contempt of court proceedings shall
be supported by an affidavit. In
case of criminal contempt three
copies of the application and the
affidavit
shall
accompany
the
application :
Provided that if there are
more than one opposite parties, the
petition shall be accompanied by as
many extra copies as there are
opposite parties.
(b) When the petitioner
relies upon any document or
documents in his possession, he
shall file the same along with the
petition or a copy thereof as
annexure to affidavit.
(c) A petition made under
Section 15 (1) (b) of the Act shall
also
be
accompanied
by
the
consent in writing of the Advocate
General and a copy thereof.
(4) Every petition is respect
of criminal contempt, where it is
not moved by the Advocate General
and where the consent in writing of
the Advocate General had not been
obtained, and every petition in
regard to criminal contempt of a
subordinate
court
where
no
reference has been made by it and
the petition is moved without the
consent of the Advocate General
shall clearly state the reasons why
the consent in writing of the
Advocate General could not be
obtained and why the court has
been approached to act suo motu.
4.
Civil
and
criminal
contempt's
presentation
after
stamp reporter :- (a) Every case
relating to civil contempt shall be
presented before the Bench107
constituted for that purpose.
(b) Every case of criminal
contempt coming under Section 15
of the Act shall be presented before
the Bench of not less than two
Judges constituted for the purpose.
(c) provided that every case
of contempt of Court presented
before the Court shall bear the
report of the Stamp Reporter as to
sufficiency of Court-fee paid and
also about limitation. References
relating to contempt of court
received on Administrative side
from the subordinate courts shall,
along with the office report with
respect thereto, be laid before the
Chief Justice, who shall have the
discretion to file the same or to
order that the same be laid before
the
Bench
concerned,
A
[at
Allahabad or Lucknow as the case
might be] for further proceedings
in connection with the case.
5. Issuance of notice :-
Such allegations contained in the
petition as appears to the Court to
make out a prima facie case of
contempt of Court against the
person concerned, shall be reduced
into charge or charges by the Court
against such person, and notice
shall be issued only with respect to
those charges :
Provided that the Court
shall not issue notice if more than a
year has elapsed from the alleged
act of contempt of court.
6.
Documents
accompanied notice :- Where an
order has been made directing that
notice be issued to any person to
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt of Court, a
date shall be fixed for the hearing
and a notice thereof in the
prescribed form given to the person
concerned. The notice of a criminal
contempt shall also be served on
the Government Advocate. The
notice shall be accompanied by
copies of the application, motion
and the affidavit or a copy of the
reference by a subordinate court as
the case may be, and a copy of the
charge or charges as framed by the
court and shall require the person
concerned to appear either in
person or through counsel unless
otherwise ordered before the Court
at the time and on the date
specified therein to show cause why
he should not be punished for
Contempt of Court. Notice of every
proceeding under Section 15 of the
Act shall be served personally on
the person charged, unless the
Court for reasons to be recorded
directs otherwise.
7.
Contempt
in
the
presence of the Court :- When it is
alleged or appears to the Court
upon its own view that a person has
been guilty of contempt committed
in its presence or hearing, the
Court may cause such person to be
detained in custody, and at any
time before the rising of the Court,
on the same day or as early as
possible thereafter, shall-
(a)
cause
him
to
be
informed in writing of the contempt
with which he is charged, and if
such person pleads guilty to the
charge, his plea shall be recorded
and the Court may in its discretion,
convict him thereon;
(b) if such person refuses to
plead, or does not plead, or claims
to be tried or the Court does not
convict him, on his plea or guilt,
afford him an opportunity to make
his defence to the charge, in
support of which he may file an
affidavit on the date fixed for his
appearance or on such other date
as may be fixed by the court in that
behalf;
(c)
after
taking
such
evidence as may be necessary or as
may be offered by such person and
after hearing him, proceed either
forthwith or after the adjournment,
to determine the matter of the
charge; and
(d) make such order for
punishment or discharge of such
person as may be just.
8. Application for transfer
of hearing to be placed before
Chief Justice :- Notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 7,
where a person charged with
contempt under that rule applies,
whether orally or in writing to have
the charge against him tried by
some Judge other than the Judge or
Judges in whose presence or
hearing the offence is alleged to
have been committed, and the court
is of opinion that it is practicable to
do so and that in the interest of
proper administration of justice the
application should be allowed, it
shall cause the matter to be placed
together with a statement of the
facts of the case, before the Chief
Justice for such directions as he
may think fit to issue as respects the
trial thereof.
9. Detention of contemnor
during
pendency
of
the
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
763
proceedings
:-
Pending
the
determination of the charge under
clause (c) of Rule 7 the Court may
direct that the person charged with
contempt under section 14 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
shall be detained in such custody as
it may specify.
10. Informant not to plead
unless directed by the court:- After
giving
information
about
the
commission of contempt of court by
any
person
or
persons,
the
informant shall not have any right
to appear or plead or argue before
the Court unless he is called upon
by the Court specially to do so.
11. Bail in contempt case:-
When any person charged with
contempt appears or is brought
before the High Court and is
prepared, while in custody or at
any stage of the proceedings, to
give bail, such person shall be
released on bail, if a bond for such
sum of money as the Court thinks
sufficient is executed with or
without sureties conditioned that
the person charged shall attend at
the time and place mentioned in the
bond and shall continue to so
attend until otherwise directed by
the Court :
Provided that the High
Court may if it thinks fit, instead of
taking bail from such person,
discharge him on his executing a
bond without sureties for his
attendance as aforesaid, or without
executing such bond :
Provided further that on
the failure of a person to comply
with the conditions of the bail bond
as regards the time and place of
attendance, the Court may refuse to
release him on bail when on a
subsequent occasion in the same
case he appears before the Court
or is brought in custody and every
such refusal shall be without
prejudice to the powers of the
Court to call upon any person
bound by such bond to pay the
penalty thereof.
The provisions of Sections
422 to 448 and 450 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall so
far as may be, apply to all the
bonds executed under the Rule.
12. Attachment of property
and warrant of arrest in certain
cases:- The Court may, if satisfied
that
the
person
charged
is
absconding or likely to abscond or
is keeping or is likely to keep out of
the way to avoid service of the
notice, order the attachment of his
property of such value or amount
as it may deem reasonable. In case
of criminal contempt the Court
may, in lieu of or in addition to the
order of attachment of property,
order issue of warrant of arrest of
such person :
Provided that, in case the
Court considers it fit and expedient,
it may issue warrant of arrest in the
first instance.
Such
warrant
may
be
endorsed in the manner laid down
in Section 71 of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure.
The
attachment referred to above shall
be effected in the manner provided
in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for the attachment of property
in execution of a decree for
payment of money. If after such
attachment, the person charged
appears
and
shows
to
the
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction of the Court that he did
not abscond or keep out of the way
to avoid service of the notice, the
Court shall order the release of his
property from attachment upon
such terms as to costs or otherwise
as it may think fit.
13. Paper book and issue
of copies in contempt cases:- The
rules contained in the Rules of
Court pertaining to grant of copies
and charging process fees in
criminal matters and preparation
of paper book in contempt of Court
cases and such other matters in
respect of which no provision has
been made in this Chapter, shall
apply mutatis mutandis to the
proceedings under this Chapter
and the appeals coming under
Section 19 of the Act. Similarly
when proceedings are pending in
subordinate Court, the Rules made
by the High Court for conduct of
business
of
such
subordinate
Courts
shall
apply
to
those
proceedings.
14. Costs :- Where costs
have been awarded by the Court in
proceedings for contempt of court
but have not been paid, the person
entitled to them may apply to the
Court for execution of the order.
The
application
shall
be
accompanied by an affidavit stating
the amount of costs awarded and
the amount, remaining unpaid, and
it shall be laid before the Court for
orders. The Court may direct the
Chief Judicial Magistrate to realise
the amount due by himself or by
any Magistrate subordinate to him.
Such amounts shall be realised as if
it were an amount of fine."

24. The power of the intra-court
appeal has been conferred on this Court by
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules which reads as under:-

"Chapter VIII
[5. Special appeal :- An
appeal shall lie to the Court from a
judgment (not being a judgment
passed in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction) in respect of a decree
or order made by a Court subject to
the superintendence of the Court
and not being an order made in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction
or in the exercise of its power of
superintendence or in the exercise
of criminal jurisdiction [or in the
exercise
of
the
jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or Article
227 of the Constitution in respect of
any judgment, order or award-
(a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory
arbitrator
made
or
purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction
under
any
Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central
Act, with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the State
List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh
Schedule
to
the
Constitution, or
(b) of the Government or
any officer or authority, made or
purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction
under any such Act of one Judge.]"

25.

Before
considering
the
respective submissions of the parties, it will
be appropriate to first notice the decisions
cited by the respective parties.
8 All. Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami & Ors.
765
26. The learned counsel for the
appellant in support of his submissions had
relied upon the decision of this Court in
Chaudhary
Shyam
Sunder
(Supra)
where it has been held that the contempt
proceedings are neither civil nor criminal
but sui generis. A High Court punishes for
contempt of court as a court of record in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and the
procedure that it adopts is not governed
either by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) or by the
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.).

27. The aforesaid authority may
have limited applicability, inasmuch as, it
can only be an authority for the fact that the
contempt powers which the High Court
exercises is on account of being a court of
record and the proceedings are sui generis
in that context. Moreover, the said decision
is of the year 1955 whereas with the
promulgation of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971, the situation has changed.
Suffice to state that the aforesaid case
may not have much precedential value as
it does not deal with the issue as to
whether against an order passed by the
Contempt Court dropping the contempt
proceedings, an intra-court appeal could
be maintained.

28. The other decisions relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant
namely Manohar Lal (Supra) deals with
the two classes of contempt as defined in
Act of 1971 i.e. civil and criminal contempt
but the said decision does not help the
appellant on the issue of maintainability of
an intra-court appeal arising out of
contempt
proceedings.
Moreover,
in
Maninderjeet Singh Bitta (Supra) the
Apex Court considered the principles
which guide the exercise of judicial
discretion in contempt jurisdiction. The
relevant portion reads as under:-

"16.
Now,
we
would
examine certain principles of law
which would normally guide the
exercise of judicial discretion in the
realm of contempt jurisdiction.
"Contempt" is an extraordinary
jurisdiction of the courts. Normally,
the courts are reluctant to initiate
contempt proceedings under the
provisions of the 1971 Act. This
jurisdiction, at least suo motu, is
invoked by the courts sparingly and
in compelling circumstances, as it
is one of the foremost duty of the
courts to ensure compliance with
its orders. The law relating to
contempt is primarily dissected into
two main heads of jurisdiction
under the Indian law: (a) criminal
contempt, and (b) civil contempt. It
is now well-settled and explained
principle
under
the
Indian
contempt jurisdiction that features,
ingredients, procedure, attendant
circumstances of the case and the
quantum of punishment are the
relevant and deciphering factors.
17. Section 12 of the 1971
Act deals with the contempt of
court and its punishment while
Section 15 deals with cognizance of
criminal contempt. Civil contempt
would be wilful breach of an
undertaking given to the court or
wilful
disobedience
of
any
judgment or order of the court,
while criminal contempt would deal
with the cases where by words,
spoken or written, signs or any
matter or doing of any act which
scandalises,
prejudices
or
interferes, obstructs or even tends
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to obstruct the due course of any
judicial proceedings, any court and
the administration of justice in any
other manner. Under the English
law,
the
distinction
between
criminal and civil contempt is
stated to be very little and that too
of academic significance. However,
under both the English and Indian
law these are proceedings sui
generis.
18.
While
referring
to
Justice J.D. Kapoor's Law of
Contempt of Court, 2nd Edn., 2010
which mentioned the Phillimore
Committee Report-Report of the
Committee on Contempt of Court,
of which importantly the following
passage can be noticed:
"4.