MOHAMMAD IDRIS AND ANR. versus RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 22-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
598 
MOHAMMAD JORIS AND ANR. 
v. 
RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS. 
August 22, 1984 
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATl! MISRA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19~1). 
High Court-Single Judge-Ordering co1111nittal for conten1pt of court-
Appeal filed before, Division Be!;ch-Dismissed-Wherher statuto1y right of 
appeal lies to Supreme Court. 
The two petitioners in the Special Leave Petition were committed to 
the civil jail for a period of one month by a Single Judge of the High 
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they had nctcd in breach 
of an undertaking given by them in a suit pending in the High Court. 
The 
appeal preferred 
by the petitioners und1:r Section 19(1) of the Act to a 
Division Bench was dismissed. 
D 
In the Special Leave Petition it was contended on 
behalf of the 
E 
F 
H 
petitioners that : ( l) trough the petition had bern filed undl.!r Afticle 136 
the petitioners have, in Jaw, an appeal as of right under Secrion 19(1), and 
(2) the Single Judge wss not justified in giving directions in addition to 
punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, 
HELD : 1. 
If 1he order of committal for contempt of court is made 
by a Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of appeal 
to a Division Bench of not less than two Judges. 
If lhe order of corn~ 
mittal of contempt of court is made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right 
to the Supreme Court. 
Where an appeal is filed against the Order of the 
Single Judge to a Division Bench, 
the statutory right of appeal gets 
exhausted and there is no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court. 
(600B-C] 
2. 
As there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the 
p.)titioners, the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions 
to close the breach. [600E] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 9395 of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1984 of 
the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984. 
R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners. 
• 
/ 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
.. 
• 
• 
• 
Mb. iDRis v. i\. J. BAilUJI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
599 
R. Karenjawata for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On an allegation that the petitioners 
had acted in breach of an undertaking given by them in Suit No. 
A 
2308 of 1983 in the High Court of Bombay, a notice was issued to 
B 
them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt 
of court. Cause was sought to be shown. A learned Single Judge of 
the High Court recorded the following finding : 
"In my judgment the action of defendants Nos 4 and 
6 clearly shows utter contempt for the orders of the court 
and under taking given by them. 
I have no hesitation iu 
holding that these defendants have committed gross con-
tempt of Court ... in my judgment, there is no circumstance 
whatsoever to take <iny lenient view of the gross contempt 
committed by defendants 4 and 6 and both of them are 
liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of 
Courts Act." 
On those findings the learned Single Judge committed each of 
the two petitioners to the civil jail for the period of one month. 
Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners prefer-
red an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court under 
s. 19(!) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was 
dismissed by the Division Bench and the present Special Leave Peti-
tion has been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench. 
Shri Ramesh N. Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits 
that though the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal has been filed 
under Article I 36 of the Constitution, the petitioners have, in law, 
an appeal as of right under s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 
The submission has only to be stated to be rejected as totally lacking 
in substance. Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is as 
follows: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or 
G 
decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to 
punish for contempt-
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, 
to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; 
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) 1 S.C.R. 
Supreme Court ; 
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the 
Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any

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