M/S RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 08-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 461 
MIS RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17688/2013) 
APRIL 8, 2013 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court - Judgment and order passed by a 
particular Court, especially the Supreme Court if alleged not 
A 
B 
to have been complied, will have to be taken care of and C 
addressed by the Court which passed the order sought to be 
complied - In the instant case, the petitioner wrongly 
approached 
the High Court for initiating contempt 
proceedings related to a direction of the Supreme Court and 
the same was rightly not entertained by the High Court -
D 
Challenge to said order of High Court by special leave 
petition, therefore, dismissed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (C) No. 17688 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2011 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in 
Contempt Petition No. ~75 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 5219 
of 2001. 
M.Y. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. 
The following order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. Delay condoned. 
2. This special leave petition is directed against the order 
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at 
Aurangabad passed in Contempt Petition No. 175 of 2005 
461 
E 
F 
G 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A arising out of Writ Petition No.5219 of 2001, which was rejected 
as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the contempt 
petition related to a direction for payment of interest at the rate 
of 11 % p.a. since there was a mistake in the calculation for the 
period in which the amount was temporarily invested in 
B pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court. 
3. It appears that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition 
in the High Court of Bombay alleging that the directions and 
order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002 
whereby this Court had allowed interest to be claimed by the 
C petitioner @ 11 % since the sale of the property for which the 
petitioner was a bidder, had been wrongly cancelled with which 
this Court refused to interfere but maintained the order of refund 
amount along with 11 % p.a. simple interest within a period of 
D 
four months. 
" 
4. The Petitioner felt aggrieved as the amount accruing 
towards 11 % interest as per computation of the petitioner had 
not been deposited by the respondent State. However, the 
petitioner did not move this Court which had passed the order 
E alleging contempt but moved the High Court of Bombay stating 
that the Respondents have indulged in contempt as they did 
not deposit the amount accrued towards 11 % interest which 
was directed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539 
of 2002. 
The learned Single Judge dismissed the contempt 
F petition as he was of the view that the contempt petition 
alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order passed by 
the Supreme Court will have to be addressed by the Supreme 
Court itself and not by the High Court, especially when no such 
liberty was given by the Supreme Court to initiate any 
G proceeding in the High Court alleging non-compliance of its 
order. Learned Single Judge has also relied upon certain 
authorities in support of the view that contempt petition cannot 
be entertained by the High Court alleging non-compliance of 
the order passed by the Supreme Court. 
H 
RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES v. STATE OF 
463 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
5. Having perused the reasons in the light of the 
A 
submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we find no infirmity 
in the view taken by the High Court as it cannot be disputed 
that the judgment and order passed by a particular Court, 
especially the Supreme Court if alleged not to have been 
complied, will have to be taken care of and addressed by the 
B 
Court which passed the order sought to be complied. The 
petitioner, therefore, wrongly approached the High Court for 
initiating contempt proceedings and the same has rightly not 
been entertained. Challenge to the said order by this special 
leave petition, therefore, is not fit to be entertained; hence the c 
special leave petition is dismissed. 
6. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that if this 
Court is of the view that the petitioner had approached the 
wrong forum for initiating contempt proceedings, he should not 
be deprived of the liberty to approach the appropriate forum, 
D 
which is the Supreme Court, for initiating fresh contempt 
pr

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