P.K. SINGH versus M/S. S.N. KANUNGO AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1040 · Decided: 18-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1040 
P.K. SINGH 
v. 
M/S. S.N. KANUNGO AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
s. 14 - Contempt petition alleging wilful and deliberate 
C violation of judgment of High Court - In an appeal arising out 
of a contract, High Court directing the Department to pay , 
decretal amount to the contractor, along with interest - Officer 
concerned writing to contractor for settlement as regart:Js 
. 
, 
· interest component - High Court holding the officer concerned 
D · guilty of contempt of court and while accepting unconditional 
apology, imposing cost on him - HELD: Order 21, r. 2 CPC 
relates to the payment of amount to a decree-holder out of . 
court - An agreement, which extinguishes· the decree as sucll 
in whole or in part and results in the satisfaction of the decree 
E in respect of the particular relief or relieves granted by the 
decree, is an 'adjustment' within the meaning of r.2 - It is open 
to the parties to enter into a contract or compromise with 
reference to their rights under the decree - Adjustment is not 
the same as satisfaction of the decree but is some method 
F of settling decree which is not provided for in the decree itself 
- ·The right of the judgment-debtor to make an attempt to 
. adjust the decree is independent and cannot be treated as 
contempt of court - Having regard to the interest of the 
. department, the officer concerned had addressed letters to the 
G . contractor to adjust the award - The letters for adjustment of 
award could not have been treated as contempt of court within 
the meaning of the provisions of the Act - The tenor of letters 
do not indicate that there was any willful disobedience on the 
· part of the officer in not complying with the judgment of the 
H 
1040 
P.K. SINGH v. S.N. KANUNGO AND ORS. 
1041 
High Court - The error of law committed by High Court is that A 
· without answering the question whether violation of the 
judgment amounts to contempt of court, it presumed that 
violation of the judgment amounts to contempt of court, and 
proceeded to examine the question whether violation of the 
judgment was willful or deliberate - After reaching the 
B 
conclusion that the violation is neither willful nor deliberate, 
the High Court should have at once dropped the contempt 
proceedings and could not have accepted the unconditional 
apology tendered by the officer nor could have imposed cost 
on him - Further, the High Court itself came to the conclusion c 
that a Jetter being written by the officer would not amount to 
willful and deliberate disobedience of the decree of the court 
- In any view of the matter, the High Court, after accepting 
the unconditional apology tendered by the officer, should not 
have imposed cost on him -
On the facts and in the 
D 
. circumstances of the case, the judgment impugned cannot 
be sustained and is set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
- Or. 21, r.2. [Para 7 and 10] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6551 of 2002. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.4.2001 of the High 
Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in contempt 
Application No. 1 O of 2001. 
Jayasree Singh, Swati Sinha, Fox Mandal & Co., for the 
Appellant. 
Jena Kalyan Das for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
F 
ORDER 
G 
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 
April 9, 2001 rendered by the High Court at Calcutta in 
Contempt Application No. 010 of 2001 by which the appellant 
is held guilty of contempt of court and is directed to pay the cost 
. of the application to the respondent which is assessed at 200 
H 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 2 S.C.R. 
A GMs. 
2. From the record of the case it is evident that a contract 
was entered into between the respondent-contractor and the 
Andaman and Nicobar Administration through Union of India 
for execution of the work of extension of runway by 1542 meters 
B (5000 ft.) at Port Blair Airport on 29.12.1995. During the course 
of the execution of the said contract, dispute arose between 
the parties regarding payments of bills. The dispute was 
referred to sole arbitration of Mr. O.P. Goel. The arbitrator made 
his Award on March 22, 1999 and directed the Andaman and 
C Nicobar Administration to pay to the respondent a sum of 
· Rs.2,81,83,305/- (Rupees two crores eighty one lacs, eighty 
three thousand, three hundred and five onl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.