PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL versus HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. DHILLON AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 17-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
510 
PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL 
v. 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. DHILLON AND ORS. 
March 17, 1978 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 19-W-What orders of High Court 
are appealable-Order initiating contempt proceedings whether appealable. 
The Hjgh Court passed an order directing issue of notk:e to the appellant 
to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt 
of the High Court. The notice was issued in accordance with the procedure 
prescribed under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appel-
lant filed an appeal against the said order under section 19(1) of the Act in 
this Court. 
The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that no appeal 
under section 19(1) is maintainable against the order in question. 
Dismissing the appeal the Court, 
llELD : 
( 1) An appeal lies to this Court as a rnatter of right from any 
order or decision of a Bench of the High Court if the order has been made in 
the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 
Ho,vever, an appeal 
cannot lie from any kind of order made by the High Court in the proceeding 
for contempt. 
The proceeding is initiated under section 17 by issuance of a 
notice. 
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the said 
proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the Legislature 
to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and 
every such order n1ade by the High Court. The order or the decision must be 
su<:h that. it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court 
affecting the right of the party aggrieved. 
1-fere initiation of a proceeding does. 
not decide any question. [511 F-H] 
2. If the alleged contemner in response to the notice appears before the High 
Court and asks it to drop the proceedings on the ground of its being barred under 
Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceedings is not 
barred, it may 'vell be that an appeal would lie to this Court under section 19. 
lt is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of the type of 
rders \vhich may· be appealable under section 19. [512 B-C} 
• 
"' 
Barudakc:nta Mishra v. Orissa, 
High Court, 
A.LR. 
1976 
S.C. 
1206, 
relied on. 
~-
Baradaka11ta Mishra v. Justice G-a.tikrushna Mishra [1975] 1 S.C.R. 524, 531-
32, distinguished. 
'( 
' 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 568 
of 1976. 
(From the Order dt. 2-4-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High 
, 
Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Original No. 15/Crl.[1975). 
H 
Mohan Behari Lal for the Appellant. 
Hardev Singh, Sunanda Bhandare and Mohini for the Respondents 
Nos. 1-2. 
' 
• 
/ 
I 
P. ·u. GOYAL v. B. s. DHILLON ( Untwalia, J.) 
'511 
S. M. Kacker, Sol. Genl. & R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. 3. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
llNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal filed by the alleged contemner 
under s. 19(1) o! the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called . 
the Act), from the order dated 2nd April, 1975 of the High Court or 
Punjab and Ilaryana directing the issue of notice to the appellant to ·· fl 
show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing con-
tempt of the High Court. 
The Notice was issued in accordance with 
the procedure prescribed under s. 17 of the Act, to show cause against 
the appellant's alleged liability to be punished under s. 15. 
A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Solicitor Genera] 
on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this Court under s. 19 
C 
of the Act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided 
by the High Court. 
Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, learned counsel for th<J 
appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie 
to this, Court as a matter of right under s. 19. 
In our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the res-
pondents is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. S. 19(1) 
D 
says:-
"An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision 
of the High Court in the 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 
Supreme Court : 
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the 
Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, 
such appeal shall lie 

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