LexOM PRAKASH JAISWAL versus D.K.MIITAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A OM PRAKASH JAISWAL v. D.K..MIITAL AND ANR. FEBRLARY 22, 20GO B (K.T. THOMAS A."ID R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2o--Limitation-Contempt proceedings-Initiation of-Held, proceedings can be said to have been in- C itiated only after the court makes a prima facie opinion. 'Initiation', meaning of The appellant filed an application before tbe High Court seehlng initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging that the respondents had demolished the construction made by the appellant D during the pendency of the writ petition and had, thus, violated the undertaking. given to the High Court by their counsel on 19.12.1986 to the effect that the "Nagur Mahapalika will not disturb or demolish the con- struction in question made by the petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition". The said construction was demolished on 11.1.1987. E F The High Court on 15.1.1987 passed an order issuing show cause notice to opposite parties as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The respondents appeared before the Court and filed their reply. On 16.12.1987, the High Court, taking into account the fact that the matter would become barred by limitation after 11.1.1998 in view of the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the order of the Court. This order was, however, not signed G by the Presiding Judge. On 6.1.1998, when the matter came up for hearing before the High Court, the High Court passed an order recording the fact that the counsel appearing for the contemnor agreed that notices be issued to show cause why the respondents be not punished for disobeying the order dated H 19.2.1986. 1064 O.P. JAISWAL v. D.K. MITIAL 1065 On 23.11.1998, the High Court dismissed the application of the A appellant for initiation of contempt proceedings on the ground that it was barred by limitation pr~scribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as mere issuing of show cause notice did not amount to "initiation of proceedings". Hence this appeal. Allowing ti.le appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Filing of an application or petition for initiating proceedings for contempt or a mere receipt of such reference by the court does n1Jt amount to initiation of the proceedings by court. On receiving B any such document it is usual with the courts to commence some proceed- C lngs by employing an expression such as 'admit', 'rule', 'issue notice' or 'issue notice to show cause whj' proceedings for contempt be not initiated'. ln all such cases the notice is issued either in routine or because the court has not ytt felt satisfied that a case for initiating any proceedings for contempt has been made out and therefore the court calls upon the opposite part to admit or deny the allegations made or to collect more D facts so as to satisfy itself if a case for initiating proceedings for contempt was made out. Such a notice is certainly anterior to initiation of contempt proceedings. (1077-G-H; 1072-B] 1.2. lt is only when the court has formed an opinion that a prirna facie E case fo• initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemners should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished; then the court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt. It is the result of a conscious applica- tion of the mind of the court to the facts and the material before it. (1072-C] F Baradakanta Misra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, (1975) 3 SCC 535; Advocate General, A.P. v. A. V. Kotes- wara Rao, (1984) Cri lJ 1171; Kishan Singh v. Hon'ble Mr. T. Anjaiah, Chief Minister, (1985) Cri W 1428 and Dineshbhai A. Parikh v. Kripalu Coop. Housing Society, Nagarve~ Ahrnedabad and Ors., AIR (1980) Guj. r94, G referred to. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition; Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. 1, referred to. ' 1.3. Initiation of proceedings for contempt based on application of H 1066 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R. A mind by the court to the facts of the case and the material before it must take place within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed failing which the jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings for contempt is lost. [1072-D] B 2.1. Avai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.