LexC. ELUMALAI & ORS. versus A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 774 A C. ELUMALAI & ORS. ... V. A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR. Contempt Petition No.118 of 2007 IN B Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19924 of 2006 MARCH 20, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ] Constitution of India, 1950: c Article 129 - Contempt of Court - Disobeyance of order of Supreme Court - Offer of apology - Held: Apology not accepted - There was willful and deliberate violation of Supreme Court's order - Therefore in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 129, exemplary cost of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on each D contemnor - Administration of justice - Contempt of Court. .,, In the present contempt petition, the stand of petitioner was that in violation of the order passed by this Court, third party rights were created. The respondent 1- E contemnor No.1 submitted that he was victim of circumstances and had no intention to disobey the orders of this Court and therefore his unconditional apology offered should be accepted. ... Allowing the contempt petition, the Court F HELD: 1. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose G punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an .. \ act of a cringing coward. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. [Paras 4, 5] H [ 777-D-F] 774 C. ELUMALAI & ORS. V AGL. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR. 775 J L.D. Jaikwal v. State of UP 1984 (3) SCC 405; TV A Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Ashok Khat and Another 2006(5) SCC 1; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Oharam Godha and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1; Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1999 (7) SCC 569; Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 21; All Bengal B Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh and Ors. (2007) 11 sec 374 - relied on. Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd. 1974 AC 273: (1973) 3 All ER 54 - referred to. c 2. Punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for D \( such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [Para 13] [ 780-G-H] E Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors. 2008(10) SCALE 349 - relied on . ..... • 3. There has been a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court's order. Therefore, in exercise of the court's jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India F exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- is imposed on each of the contemnors. In case of non payment, the contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. ·Any "third party right created would not be of any ... .. consequence. [Para 15] [ 781-B-C] G Case Law Reference 1984 (3) sec 405 relied on [Para 5] 2006(5) sec 1 relied on [Para 6] H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A (2003) 11 sec 1 relied on [Para 8) 1999 (7) sec 569 relied on [Para 9) 2002 (4) sec 21 relied on [Para 10] 8 (2007) 11 sec 37 4 relied on [Para 11] (1973) 3 All ER 54 referred to [Para 12] 2008(10) SCALE 349 relied on [Para 14] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition c No.118 of 2007 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) N0.19924 OF 2006 From the Judgement and Order dated 22.11.2006 of the o Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 336 & 337 of 2006. K.K. Mani, R. Thiagarajan, CKR Lenin Sekar, for the Appellants. E P.S. Narasimhan, V. Balaji, TS. Shanthi, Rakesh K. F Sharma, 8. Rajendran, Pravesh Thakur, Narendra Kumar, for the Respondents. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Alleging violation of the order passed by this Court, the present contempt petition has been filed. Stand of the petitioners is that by order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP(C) No. 19924 of 2006, this court had directed that the High Court which was considering • G CS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.