DINESH KUMAR GUPTA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 599 
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA 
V. 
UNITED !NOIA INSUFU,t·iCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8839 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) . 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) - Civil contempt 
A 
B 
- Alleged disobedience of Court order - Interim stay order 
passed by High Court in favour of Insurance Company against C 
implementation of compensation award granted by Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) - Order not complied with 
- Reason for non-compliance fastened upon the appellant, 
who joined the High Court registry, as Deputy Registrar 
(Judicial), about four years after the interim order of stay had 
D 
been passed - Suo motu contempt proceedings against the 
appellant on the a/legation that he had obstructed the course 
of administration of justice - Justification of - Held: Not 
justified - On the relevant date, and even thereafter, for four 
years, the appellant was not functioning in the High Court in 
any capacity, therefore, even though the inierim stay order was 
not complied, the reason or liability for its non-compliance 
cannot be fastened on the appellant -Appellant did not 
commit any misconduct or even unintentional disobedience 
of the interim order of stay -
The ingredient of willfui 
disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up 
E 
F 
for the charge of contempt of a civil nature - Contempt of a 
civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there 
has been a willful disobedience of the order - Even though 
there may be disobedience, but if the same does not reflect 
that it has been a conscious and willful disobedience, a case 
G 
for contempt cannot be held to have been made out - If an 
order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise 
to a variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
cannot be held to be willful disobedience to constitute a case 
of contempt - When the courts are confronted with a question 
whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of willful 
disobedience or a case of lame excuse, it would not be legally 
correct to be too speculative based on assumption. 
B 
A Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim 
order of stay against implementation of a compensation 
award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 
(MACT). The order was not complied with. The reason for 
non-implementation of the order of stay was fastened 
C upon the appellant, who joined the High Court registry as 
Deputy Registrar (Judicial) approximately four years after 
the interim order of stay had been passed. Consequently, 
the Single Judge of the High Court initiated suo motu 
contempt proceedings against the appellant on the 
D allegation that he had obstructed the course of 
administration of justice by ensuring that the interim 
order of stay should not be implemented and by shielding 
the MACT judge concerned, against whom vigilance 
inquiry had been ordered. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The contempt alleged against the appellant 
would not amount to a criminal contempt because the 
alleged contempt, even if made out, would clearly at the 
F best be of a civil nature, which is evident from Section 2 
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [Para 12] [613-A-B] 
1.2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 postulates the 
existence of preconditions before a person can be held 
G to have committed civil contempt. Contempt of a civil 
nature can be held to have been made out only if there 
has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even 
though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does 
not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful 
H 
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA v. UNITED INDIA 
601 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have 
A 
been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than 
one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, 
non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be wilful 
disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of 
contempt entailing the serious consequence including 
B 
imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are 
confronted with a question as to whether a given 
situatfon could be treated to be a case of willful 
disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to 
subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, c 
will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of 
a particular case; but while decidi

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