MIDNAPORE PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ORS. versus CHUNILAL NANDA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 25-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH, R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIDNAPORE PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ORS. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
v. 
CHUNILAL NANDA AND ORS. 
MAY 25, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN. JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 19/Limitation Act, 1963; 
Section 5: 
Employee-Suspension-Enquiry Proceedings-Challenge to-Single 
Judge of High Court ordered denovo enquiry-Delay in completion of 
enquiry-Filing of contempt petition by the employee-Single Judge of the 
High Court directing the employer-Bank to reinstate the suspended employee 
and to pay arrears of salary-Division Bench of the High Court dismissed 
the Letters Patent Appeal and also application for condonation of delay-
On appeal, Held: Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt Act lies only 
against the order of High Court imposing punishment for contempt--:fn a 
contempt proceeding, it is not appropriate to decide any issue on merits-
Single Judge of the High Court erred in issuing directions for reinstating 
the employee and payment of arrears in a contempt proceeding-The order 
of Single Judge was appealable in Terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent-
Moreover, there was no disobedience/breach/negligence on the part of the 
employer to provoke the Court to issue such directions-Hence set aside-
F 
Constitution of India, !950-Article 136. 
G 
Practice and Procedure: 
Filing of appeal-Aggrieved persons-Since the Chairman and the 
Secretary were representatives of the Bank and directions were issued to 
them, they were the persons aggrieved and, therefore, could file an appeal 
against such directions. 
Letters Patent; Clause 15: In what circumstances. Letters Patent 
Appeal is maintainable against Interlocutory Order--Held: Though orrf,e,r of 
H the Single Judge is interlocutory as it finally decided a collateral is{;ue, 
986 
MIDNAPORE PEOPLE' CO-OP. BANK LTD. v. C. NANDA 
987 
Letters Patent Appeal could be filed against such order-Code of Civil 
A 
Procedure, 1908 Section 2(9) Order 43 Rule I. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these appei:ls for 
determination by this Court were: 
(i) whether the order passed by High Court in a contempt 
proceedings by rendering a decision on the merits of a dispute between 
the parties, either by an interlocutory order or final judgment, is 
appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, If not, 
what is the remedy of the person aggrieved; 
(ii) whether an inter-court appeal lies against the Interlocutory 
orders passed by a Single Judge under clause 15 of the Letters Patent; 
(iii) whether the Court, in a co,ntempt proceeding initiated by a 
delinquent employee against the Enquiry Officer as also the Chairman 
and Secretary in-charge of the employer-Bank, complaining of 
disobedience of an order directing completion of the enquiry in a time 
bound schedule could direct (a) that the employer shall reinstate the 
employee forthwith; (b) that the employee shall not be prevented from 
discharging his duties in any manner; (c) that the employee shall be paid 
all arrears of salary; (d) that the Enquiry Officer shall cease to be the 
Enquiry Officer and the employer shall appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer, 
and (e) that the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked. 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2002 and dismissing SLP (C) 
c 
D 
E 
Nos. 13045-46 of 2003 as infructuous, the Court 
F 
HELD: I.I. An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts 
Act is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court 
passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. (1000-B) 
1.2. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, 
G 
nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping 
the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the 
contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the Act. In special 
circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. (1000-C) 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide 
whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what 
should be the punishment. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate 
to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute 
between the parties. [1000-D[ 
B 
1.4. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on 
the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise 
of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not a

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