LexCHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. versus P. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1287 : 2024 INSC 957 Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors. (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 688 of 2021) In (Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997) 10 December 2024 [M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – Willful Disobedience: Held: In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions – The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same – It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. [Para 1.10] Contempt of Court – Execution of decree – Alternate remedy: Held: The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for – The paramount consideration is given to maintain court’s dignity and majesty of law. [Para 1.11] Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience – Action in disregard: Held: The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of this Court – What would be relevant is the “wilful * Author 1288 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports disobedience” – Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched. [Para 1.12] Contempt of Court – Allegation of wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court: Held: A plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 would indicate that direction issued to the respondents is to the effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules – There was no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders – It is also not the case of the contemnors that any doubt being there in the said orders – The respondents seem to have dragged their feet and for no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said orders – Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders of this Court and respondents having failed in their attempt to seek modification of order dated 21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under any circumstances whatsoever for not implementing the orders of this Court, particularly when clarification/modification prayer was put to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court – In fact, this Court by Order dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that respondents would purge in the contempt by implementing the same in its letter & spirit had directed compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 – An additional condition was imposed or in other words orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was tweaked by this Court – A valiant attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that orders of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated 15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government Orders – In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the authorities seems to be projecting a picture that the possession of the subject land has not been delivered and this is nothing but suppressing the true facts and making a false statement before this Court namely suppressio veri suggestio falsi – The State and its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing the orders of the Court – However, there seems to be thin line of doubt which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities as regards the valuation and in this direction if steps have been taken to protect the interest of the revenue and several meetings have been held and these aspects are placed before the State Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1289 Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors. cannot be construed or held that State is not willing to implement the order and particularly in the background of several orders having been passed though not in co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.