R. K. ARORA GENERAL MANAGER & ANR. versus M/S ACE ENTERPRISES

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 07-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
R. K. ARORA GENERAL MANAGER & ANR.
v.
M/S ACE ENTERPRISES
(Civil Appeal No. 1820 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Contempt petition – Maintainability of –
On facts, allegation of violation of injunction order – Application
by respondent for initiating contempt – Dismissal of the application
by the trial court holding that there was no contempt – High Court
held that Sub-Judge assumed a jurisdiction, not vested in it under
law – On appeal, held: Though an application for contempt was
filed before the trial court, it was, in fact, a petition for taking action
u/Or. XXXIX, r.2A of the 1977 Act – It is not a case for initiating
contempt on the face of it – These are two different jurisdictions,
which has been clarified by the High Court – Application filed by
the respondent for initiating contempt to be treated as an application
for taking action u/Or. XXXIX, r. 2A of the 1977 Act – Jammu and
Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1977 – Or. XXXIX, r. 2A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though an application for contempt was filed
before the trial court, it was, in fact, a petition for taking action
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Jammu and Kashmir Code of
Civil Procedure Act, 1977. It is not a case for initiating contempt
on the face of it. These are two different jurisdictions. That is all
that has been clarified by the High Court. It is directed that the
application filed by the respondent for initiating contempt would
be treated as an application for taking action under Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the 1977 Act. The trial court would first see whether
there is any disobedience of the order of injunction and in case
there is a finding of disobedience, the rest u/Or. XXXIX r. 2A
alone shall follow.[Para 7][495-F-H; 496-A]
1.2 The submission made by the appellants regarding
separate contracts and pending application under Section 8 of
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 491
491
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act etc. are open to the
appellants to canvas before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Being a matter pending since long, the trial court is directed to
decide the application expeditiously. [Para 8][496-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1820 of
2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2015 of the High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in OWP No.377/2014.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Rahul Narayan, Ms.Mala Narayan, Sushant
Goel,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms.Aishwarya Bhati,  Adv. for the Respondent.
Respondent-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. On 22.06.2011, the Court of Small Causes, Srinagar, passed an
order of injunction in the following terms :-
“The application in hand will not be allowed, there are chances
that the suit of the applicant will become infructuous.  So in
the interests of justice the application in hand is allowed and
the proceedings before the arbitration with regard to matter
titled M/s ACE Enterprises Vs. Union of India and ors is stayed
till the objections from the other side is filed.  Put up this file
on 26-07-11.”
3. Alleging violation of the above order, an application was filed
for initiating contempt proceedings.  The prayer reads as follows :-
“It is therefore prayed that the contempt proceedings may
please be intiated and the contemnors be punished according
to law and the order of revival passed by the Arbitrator may
please be stayed.”
4. The Court of Small Causes treated the application filed by the
respondent as an application for contempt without mentioning any
provision.  It is also significant to note that even the applicant had not
mentioned any provision for initiating contempt.  The Court passed an
order dated 06.11.2013 by entering a finding that there is no contempt
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
and that there is no violation of the order dated 22.06.2011.  The operative
portion of the order, to the extent relevant, reads as follows :-
“The proceedings of the arbitration continued by the
Arbitrator, is based on the understanding of the Arbitrator
and the learned counsel for the defendants as to the correct
import of the order dated 22-06-2011.  The said understanding
arrived at, though is borne out from the facts and
circumstances pertaining to the controversy, cannot be
construed as willful and deliberate attempt on the part of
counsel for parties involved, to flout the order of the co

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