# PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL v. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. DHILLON AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 510
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-03-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1976
- **Bench:** N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/purshottam-das-goyal-v-hon-ble-mr-justice-b-s-dhillon-and-ors-7356
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 19-W-What orders of High Court
are appealable-Order initiating contempt proceedings whether appealable.
The Hjgh Court passed an order directing issue of notk:e to the appellant
to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt
of the High Court. The notice was issued in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order under section 19(1) of the Act in
this Court.
The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that no appeal
under section 19(1) is maintainable against the order in question.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
llELD :
( 1) An appeal lies to this Court as a rnatter of right from any
order or decision of a Bench of the High Court if the order has been made in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Ho,vever, an appeal
cannot lie from any kind of order made by the High Court in the proceeding
for contempt.
The proceeding is initiated under section 17 by issuance of a
notice.
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the said
proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the Legislature
to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and
every such order n1ade by the High Court. The order or the decision must be
su<:h that. it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court
affecting the right of the party aggrieved.
1-fere initiation of a proceeding does.
not decide any question. [511 F-H]
2. If the alleged contemner in response to the notice appears before the High
Court and asks it to drop the proceedings on the ground of its being barred under
Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceedings is not
barred, it may 'vell be that an appeal would lie to this Court under section 19.
lt is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of the type of
rders \vhich may· be appealable under section 19. [512 B-C}
•
"'
Barudakc:nta Mishra v. Orissa,
High Court,
A.LR.
1976
S.C.
1206,
relied on.
~-
Baradaka11ta Mishra v. Justice G-a.tikrushna Mishra [1975] 1 S.C.R. 524, 53132, distinguished.
'(
'
G

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
510
PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL
v.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. DHILLON AND ORS.
March 17, 1978
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 19-W-What orders of High Court
are appealable-Order initiating contempt proceedings whether appealable.
The Hjgh Court passed an order directing issue of notk:e to the appellant
to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt
of the High Court. The notice was issued in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order under section 19(1) of the Act in
this Court.
The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that no appeal
under section 19(1) is maintainable against the order in question.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
llELD :
( 1) An appeal lies to this Court as a rnatter of right from any
order or decision of a Bench of the High Court if the order has been made in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Ho,vever, an appeal
cannot lie from any kind of order made by the High Court in the proceeding
for contempt.
The proceeding is initiated under section 17 by issuance of a
notice.
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the said
proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the Legislature
to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and
every such order n1ade by the High Court. The order or the decision must be
su<:h that. it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court
affecting the right of the party aggrieved.
1-fere initiation of a proceeding does.
not decide any question. [511 F-H]
2. If the alleged contemner in response to the notice appears before the High
Court and asks it to drop the proceedings on the ground of its being barred under
Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceedings is not
barred, it may 'vell be that an appeal would lie to this Court under section 19.
lt is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of the type of
rders \vhich may· be appealable under section 19. [512 B-C}
•
"'
Barudakc:nta Mishra v. Orissa,
High Court,
A.LR.
1976
S.C.
1206,
relied on.
~-
Baradaka11ta Mishra v. Justice G-a.tikrushna Mishra [1975] 1 S.C.R. 524, 53132, distinguished.
'(
'
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 568
of 1976.
(From the Order dt. 2-4-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High
,
Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Original No. 15/Crl.[1975).
H
Mohan Behari Lal for the Appellant.
Hardev Singh, Sunanda Bhandare and Mohini for the Respondents
Nos. 1-2.
'
•
/
I
P. ·u. GOYAL v. B. s. DHILLON ( Untwalia, J.)
'511
S. M. Kacker, Sol. Genl. & R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. 3.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
llNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal filed by the alleged contemner
under s. 19(1) o! the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called .
the Act), from the order dated 2nd April, 1975 of the High Court or
Punjab and Ilaryana directing the issue of notice to the appellant to ·· fl
show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of the High Court.
The Notice was issued in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under s. 17 of the Act, to show cause against
the appellant's alleged liability to be punished under s. 15.
A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Solicitor Genera]
on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this Court under s. 19
C
of the Act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided
by the High Court.
Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, learned counsel for th<J
appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie
to this, Court as a matter of right under s. 19.
In our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. S. 19(1)
D
says:-
"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision
of the High Court in the 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
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."
It would appear from a plain reading of the section that an appeal shall
lie to this Court as a matter of right from any order or decision of a bench
of the High Court if the order has been made in the exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
No appeal can lie as a matter of
right from any kind of order made by the High Court in the proceeding
for contempt.
The proceeding is initiated under s. 17 by issuance of
a notice.
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in
the said proceeding by the High Court.
It could not ht\ the intention
of the legislature to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of
right from each and every such order made by the High Court.
The
or~er or the decision must be such that it decides some bone of contenti.on raised bef~r~. th~ High Court a~ecting the right of the party
aggneved.
Mere 1mtiat10n of a proceedmg for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for
drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question.
This Court,
E
F
G
H
A
B,
c
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 3 5.C.R.
for the first time, cannot be asked in such an appeal to decide whether
the person proceeded against has committed contempt of the High Court
or not.
The matter has to be decided either finally or, may be. even
at an earlier stage an order is made, which does decide a: contention
raised by the alleged contemner asking the High Court to drop the proceeding. It is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an exhaustive
list of the typei of orders which may be appealable to this Court under
s. 19.
A final order, surely, will be appealablc.
Our attention was
dra.wn by Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, to s. 20 of the Act which provides :-
"No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt,
either on its own motion or otherwise, 'after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed."
He submitted that initiation of the proceeding by the High Court will
be without jurisdiction if it is in violation of s. 20. It may be so. If
the alleged contemner in response to the notice appears before the High
Court and asks it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its being barrec\ under s. 20 of the Act but the High Court holds tliat tlm proceeding
is not barred, it may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court under
s. 19 from such an order although the proceeding has remained pending
in the High Court. We are not called upon to express our final opinion
in regard to such :iln order, but we merely mention this type of order by
way of an example to show that even orders made at some intermitent
stage in the proceeding may be appealable under s. 19.
Tn our considered judgment, an order merely initiating the proceeding without anything further, does not decide anything against the alleged eontemnet
and cannot be appealed against as a matter of right under s. 19.
Io a
given cas'e special leave may be granted under Art. 136 of the Constitution from an order initiating the proceeding. But that is entirely a
different matter.
What we are. deciding in this case is that the present
appeal filed under s. 19 (1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent.
We find some support to the view expressed by us above from the
dc8ision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Orissa High Court,(')
where it has been held tliat no appeal lies to this Court under s. t 9 of the
Act from an order rejecting the prayer of the alleged contcmncr for
J1earing the case piecemeal.
Mr. Lal placed reliance on the observotions of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrus/111a Mishra('). What has been
ckcided therein is this : that on a reference made by the AdvoeateGeneral if the Court declines to take cognisance and to initiate proceeding for contempt, the order is not an order initiating contempt proceeding. Surely, it is not appealable under s. 19· But there are no oboervations by this Court nor on the facts of that case there can be any, to
show that ari appeal wonld lie to this Court from an order of the High
Court merely initiating the proceeding by issuance of a notice.
We
may repeat that it may be a different matter if the order does decide
(I) A.I.R.1976 S.C.1206.
(2) [1975] I S.C.R. 524 (at pp. 531-32\.
)
'
-
•
>
P. D. GOYAL v. B. s. DHILLON ( Untwalia, J.)
513
some disputes raised before it by the contemner asking it to drop the
A
proceeding on one ground or the other.
But unless and until there is
some order or decision of the High Court adjudicating upon any matter
raised before it by the parties, affecting their right, the mere order issuing the notice is not appealabJe.
'!he appeal is, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable.
PHP.
Appeal dismissed.
B