D.N. TANEJA versus BHAJAN LAL

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 04-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D.N. TANEJA 
v. 
BHAJAN LAL 
MAY 4, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, M.M. DUTT AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 19( 1)-Interpretation 
of-When can High Court be said to exercise its jurisdiction to punish 
for its contempt--High Court exercises this jurisdiction only when it 
imposes punishment for contempt-If no punishment is imposed on 
contemnor, no jurisdiction to punish for contempt is exercised. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 19( 1)-Interpretation 
of-The right of appeal is only of the contemnor and not of the person 
who alleges that the contemnor had committed contempt of the Court-
Remedy of the person alleging contempt lies under Article 136 of the 
D 
Constitution. 
E 
F 
Rule of Interpretation-Right of appeal is a creature of statute and 
should be considered on interpretation of provisions of the statute and 
not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. 
The appellant filed an application for contempt against the 
respondent in the High Court complaining of interference by the res-
pondent with the due course of judicial proceedings. A Single Judge of 
the High Court after considering the application, affidavits and submis-
sions made on behalf of the parties took the view that it was not a fit 
case in which the court should exercise its jurisdiction under the con-
tempt of Courts Act and dismissed the application. The appellant filed 
the instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Act. The respondent took 
a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under 
section 19(1). While upholding the objection and dismissing the Appeal, 
this Court, 
G 
HELD: The High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for 
contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. The appeal will lie under 
Section 19(1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or 
decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The High 
Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 
2 J 5 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. 
H 
When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged 
888 
•
i 
D.N. TANEJA v. BHAJAN LAL 
889 
contemnor the High court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to 
A 
punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. 
When no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say 
that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred 
on it by Article 215 of the Constitution. [892C-E] 
· 
Whenever a court, tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdic-
tion to decide a matter, such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding 
the matter in favour or against a person. For example, a civil court is 
conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a suit; the civil court will have 
undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same. But 
when a court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in 
a particular manner, the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will 
involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other. Article 215 
confers jurisdiction or power on the High court to punish for contempt. 
The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for 
contempt. [893F·Gl 
The contention of the appellant that there would be no remedy 
against the erroneous or perverse decisfon of the High Court in not 
exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, is not correct. When 
the High Court erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal 
contempt, the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of 
the Court will not be without any remedy. Even though no appeal is 
maintainable under section 19(1) of the Act, the petitioner in such a case 
can move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [894B-C) 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question 
whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an 
~interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of F 
· propriety or any other consideration. [8940-E] 
A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged 
contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court for 
contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting 
contempt of court. After furnishing such information he may still assist 
the court, but the aggrieved party under section 19(1) can only be the 
contemnor who has been punished for contempt of cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.