# MOHAMMAD JORIS AND ANR v. RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1985] 1 S.C.R. 598
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-08-22
- **Bench:** 0. Ch!Nnappa Reddy, RANGANATl! MISRA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohammad-joris-and-anr-v-rustam-jahangir-babuji-and-others-8706
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19~1).
High Court-Single Judge-Ordering co1111nittal for conten1pt of courtAppeal filed before, Division Be!;ch-Dismissed-Wherher statuto1y right of
appeal lies to Supreme Court.
The two petitioners in the Special Leave Petition were committed to
the civil jail for a period of one month by a Single Judge of the High
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they had nctcd in breach
of an undertaking given by them in a suit pending in the High Court.
The
appeal preferred
by the petitioners und1:r Section 19(1) of the Act to a
Division Bench was dismissed.
D
In the Special Leave Petition it was contended on
behalf of the
E
F
H
petitioners that : ( l) trough the petition had bern filed undl.!r Afticle 136
the petitioners have, in Jaw, an appeal as of right under Secrion 19(1), and
(2) the Single Judge wss not justified in giving directions in addition to
punishing the petitioners for contempt of court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition,
HELD : 1.
If 1he order of committal for contempt of court is made
by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges.
If lhe order of corn~
mittal of contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right
to the Supreme Court.
Where an appeal is filed against the Order of the
Single Judge to a Division Bench,
the statutory right of appeal gets
exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
(600B-C]
2.
As there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the
p.)titioners, the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions
to close the breach. [600E]
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 9395 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1984 of
the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984.
R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
•
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
Mb. iDRis v. i\. J. BAilUJI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
599
R. Karenjawata for the Respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
598
MOHAMMAD JORIS AND ANR.
v.
RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.
August 22, 1984
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATl! MISRA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19~1).
High Court-Single Judge-Ordering co1111nittal for conten1pt of courtAppeal filed before, Division Be!;ch-Dismissed-Wherher statuto1y right of
appeal lies to Supreme Court.
The two petitioners in the Special Leave Petition were committed to
the civil jail for a period of one month by a Single Judge of the High
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they had nctcd in breach
of an undertaking given by them in a suit pending in the High Court.
The
appeal preferred
by the petitioners und1:r Section 19(1) of the Act to a
Division Bench was dismissed.
D
In the Special Leave Petition it was contended on
behalf of the
E
F
H
petitioners that : ( l) trough the petition had bern filed undl.!r Afticle 136
the petitioners have, in Jaw, an appeal as of right under Secrion 19(1), and
(2) the Single Judge wss not justified in giving directions in addition to
punishing the petitioners for contempt of court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition,
HELD : 1.
If 1he order of committal for contempt of court is made
by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges.
If lhe order of corn~
mittal of contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right
to the Supreme Court.
Where an appeal is filed against the Order of the
Single Judge to a Division Bench,
the statutory right of appeal gets
exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
(600B-C]
2.
As there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the
p.)titioners, the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions
to close the breach. [600E]
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 9395 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1984 of
the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984.
R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
•
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
Mb. iDRis v. i\. J. BAilUJI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
599
R. Karenjawata for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On an allegation that the petitioners
had acted in breach of an undertaking given by them in Suit No.
A
2308 of 1983 in the High Court of Bombay, a notice was issued to
B
them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt
of court. Cause was sought to be shown. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court recorded the following finding :
"In my judgment the action of defendants Nos 4 and
6 clearly shows utter contempt for the orders of the court
and under taking given by them.
I have no hesitation iu
holding that these defendants have committed gross contempt of Court ... in my judgment, there is no circumstance
whatsoever to take <iny lenient view of the gross contempt
committed by defendants 4 and 6 and both of them are
liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act."
On those findings the learned Single Judge committed each of
the two petitioners to the civil jail for the period of one month.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court under
s. 19(!) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was
dismissed by the Division Bench and the present Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench.
Shri Ramesh N. Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that though the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal has been filed
under Article I 36 of the Constitution, the petitioners have, in law,
an appeal as of right under s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The submission has only to be stated to be rejected as totally lacking
in substance. Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is as
follows:
c
D
E
F
"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or
G
decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt-
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge,
to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the
ff
A
B
c
D
E
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985) 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court ;
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory,
such aopeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."
If the order of commital for conrompt or' Court is made by a
Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. If the
order of comm ital for cuntempt of court is made by a Bench, an
appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court.
Where an appeal is
filed against th<; order of the learned Single Judge to a Division
Bench, tne staiutory ngnt oi appeal gets exhausted and there is no
further right of appeal to the Supreme Court
Shri Keshwani cited
to u~ Purushottam Das Goel v. Hon. Justice B.S. Dhi/lon.\1) The
decision 1s entirely irrelevant.
On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the undertaking
given was not in respect of the property concerned anci that in any
case the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving certain
directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of
court. We find no substance in the submissions made by the learned
counsel. There was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the
petitioners and we are of the opinion that the Single Judge was
quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach. The
Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed
N.V.K.
Petition dismissed.
0) A.I.&. 19V8 S.C. 1014.
•
•
•
•
•
•