R.N. DEY AND ORS. versus BHAGYABATI PRAMENIK AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 19-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.N. DEY AND ORS. 
... 
v. 
•· 
BHAGYABATI PRAMENIK AND ORS. 
APRIL 19, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Contempt proceedings-Initiation of-
Against officers of State-For non-satisfaction of money decree awarding 
compensation for the land acquired-Execution petition not filed-Held, the 
c 
weapon of contempt cannot be used for execution of the decree or implemen-
tation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for-An 
aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such 
jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemiior and the Court-Court should 
be slow to haul up the officers of the Government for non-satisfaction of such 
D 
money decre-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XXI. 
Section 19-Appeal under-Against interim order-Maintainability of-
Held, maintainable, since the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt 
commences with initiation of proceedings for contempt-And if the order is 
pa.ssed not discharging the Rule issued in contempt proceeding, it would be an 
.... 
E 
order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Compensation under-Payment of-State 
disputing title of claimants over the property and contending that the decree of 
award of compensation wa.s obtained by frau.d-lnitiation of contempt proceed-
ings for non-payment of compensation-Held, State cannot be dirncted to pay 
F 
compensation, under the coercion of contempt proceeding-Estates Acquisition 
Act, 1953-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
Compensation in l"espect of the land in question, which was vested in 
the State under Estates Acquisition Act, was, by mistake, paid to the 
G 
respondents/claimants which was further enhanced. 
In appeal to High Court by the State against the order enhancing the 
~ 
compensation, State was d.ireded to make ad hoc payment as interim relief 
which was paid by the State. High Court, forther, in its interim order 
directed the State to pay 3/4th of the admitted amount of compensation, 
H 
against which, the State filed a petition to this Court. The same was 
172 
R.N. DEY v. B.PRAMENII( 
173 
>-
ultimately withdrawn with liberty to move High Court for suitable ord€J(' 
A 
-
..:...1 
Thereafter, it came to the notice of the State that the claimants had no 
right, title or interest in the land in question, as the land had vested in the 
State, and therefore compensation was not ·payable to them. Hence, it 
moved an application for vacation of the order for the payment. 
B 
The claimants/respondents filed contempt petition before High Court 
against the appellants, for not having complied with its interim order. The 
Court accepted unqualified apology tendered by the appellants and 
directed the appellants to deposit the compensation money, but did not 
discharge the Rule issued in the contempt proceeding. 
c 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the contempt 
application was wholly untenable and the issuance of Rule was unjustifi· 
able, since there was no specific order staying the award passed by the 
Land Acquisition Judge, the respondents could have proceeded with the 
execution of the decree of the award, instead of r.Iing the contempt petition. 
D 
The respondent contended that since the matter was pending before High 
" 
Court, this Court should not interfere at the interlocutory stage. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
.,t.. 
HELD : 1.1. The contempt proceedings were not required to be 
E 
initiated at all. In any case, the unconditional apology tendered could have 
been accepted and further proceedings dropped and Rule ought to have 
been discharged. [178-F] 
1.2. Weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. 
)'.. 
Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation 
F. 
of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. DiScretion 
given to the Courtis to be exercised for maintenance of Court's dignity and 
majesty of law. Further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court 
should exercise such jurusdictlon as contempt is between a contemnor and 
the Court. (176-H; 177-A] 
G 
-'t 
1.3. Under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be 
directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by 
asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in que!Stion 
and that decree was obtained by supp~g the material fact and by 
fraud. Even presuming that claimants are entitle

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