JAGADGURU ANNADANISHWARA MAHA SWAMIJI versus V.C. ALLIPUR & ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'..--
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 8 
A 
JAGADGURU ANNADANISHWARA MAHA SWAMIJI 
v. 
V.C. ALLIPUR & ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No.1798 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 20, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA A.ND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971: 
c 
ss. 2(a) and 2(b) - Contempt of Court- Civil contempt-
Non-compliance of order of Director, Pre-University Education 
- Application before High Court for initiating contempt 
proceedings against defaulters - HELD: Not maintainable -
Director. Pre-University Education is not a court within the 
D provisions of the Act - Taking cognizance of the application 
by High Court and its order directing to frame charge were 
wholly illegal and non est in the eyes of law - Orders of High 
Court set aside - Applications dismissed. 
Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. 
E 1950 SCR. 459=AIR 1950 :SC 188; P. Sarathy v. State Bank 
of India (2000) 5 sec 355 and State of Madhya Pradesh and 
another v. Anshuman Shukla (2008) 7 SCC 487, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
F 
1950 SCR 459 
referred to 
para 9 
c2000) 5 sec 355 
referred to 
para 11 
c2oos') 1 sec 487 
referred to 
para 12 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUHISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1798 of 2009. 
>-
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.5.2007 & 11.6.2007 
of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC No. 341 
H 
8 
JAGADGURU ANNADANISHWARA MAHA SWAMIJI v. 
9 
V.C.ALLIPUR & ANR. 
of 2006. 
A 
Shankar Divate for the Appellant. 
Shanth Kr. V. Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, R.J. Goulay and S. 
Usha Reddy for the Respondents. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
c 
... 
Appellant is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with 
the order dated 31st May, 2007 passed by a Division Bench 
of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC No.341 
of 2006 and also the order dated 11th June, 2007 . 
.J. 
D 
Respondent No.1 was working as an Assistant Teacher in 
a school run by the appellant. In relation to his claim for 
promotion as a lecturer as he had obtained M.A. degree, he 
approached the school authorities. The management declined 
-I 
his request. Respondent No.1 then made a representation to 
the Deputy Director, Education who in turn asked the 
E 
-
management to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for 
promotion. The Director, Pre-University, Education passed an 
order on 25th July, 2005 in his favour. 
' 
1 
Appellant preferred an appeal before the appropriate F 
authority which is still pending. 
Respondent No.1, however, filed an application purported 
to be under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971 (for short 'the Act'} before the Karnataka High Court G 
praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: 
--1 
"WHEREFORE, the Complainant prays that this Hon'ble 
Court be pleased to call for relevant records and initiate 
contempt proceedings against the respondents for 
disobedience of the order of the D '3ctor, P.U. Edt;i~tion H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 
...
A 
made in Appeal PUAP-51/2005 dated 25.7.2005 as per 
Annexure-A and to pass any other appropriate and suitable 
orders as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest 
of justice and equity." 
B 
The said application was entertained by reason of the 
impugned judgment and furthermore charges have also been 
directed to be framed. 
The short question which arises for consideration in this 
appeal is as to whether the Director of the Pre-University, 
c Education is a Court within the meaning of the provisions of the 
Act or not. 
Indisputably, the Director of Pre-University, Education is a 
statutory authority. Contempt has been defined in Section 2(a) 
D of the Act to mean a civil contempt or criminal contempt. 
·' 
Indisputably, the contempt proceedings initiated by the first 
respondent before the High Court was civil in nature. Civil 
contempt has been defim~d in Section 2(b) of the Act to mean 
wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, 
E writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an 
undertaking given to a court. 
": 
It is now well settled principle of law and having regard to 
the definition of the Court contained in various statutes like 
Code of Civil Procedure cir the Evidence Act would mean a 
F Tribunal, whose decision shall be final and/or would be entitled 
to take evidence in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. 
It is also well settled that although a Tribunal may exercise some 
of its powers in terms of th13 Code of Civil Procedure or Code 
of Criminal pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.