LexRAJAN CHADHA & ANR. versus SANJAY ARORA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1603 : 2025 INSC 546 Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora (Civil Appeal No. 5467 of 2025) 23 April 2025 [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, whether another Judge could have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, 19 – On 05.12.2023, the Single Judge of the High Court in a contempt petition held the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent to purge the contempt failing which the respondent was directed to file an affidavit stating as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – On change of roster, another Single Judge of the High Court was seized of the contempt petition – On 03.07.2024, the Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment and final order, came to the conclusion that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience by the respondent – Thus, the show cause notice issued to the respondent was discharged – Correctness: Held: It is clear that the Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.07.2024 has reviewed the entire order of the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 – After the order was passed on 05.12.2023, another Single Judge could have only considered whether the respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged the contempt, as to whether he should be punished or not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – It was not permissible for the Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt * Author 1604 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports or not – If the Respondent was of the view that the order passed by the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 holding him to be guilty of contempt was not correct in law, the only option available to him was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Having accepted the order dated 05.12.2023, the respondent could not have contended, or for that matter, the Single Judge could not have held that the respondent has not committed contempt of the Court – It is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial propriety – When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. [Paras 16, 17, 19] List of Keywords Contempt; Contempt of Court; MoU (Memorandum of Understanding); Wilful and deliberate disobedience; Intentional violation of orders. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5467 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CONT. CAS (C) No. 75 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rohan Jaitley, Tanvir Nayar, Akshay Sharma, Bhuvnesh Sehgal, Dev Pratap Shahi, Yogya Bhatia. Advs. for the Respondent: Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Anjaneya Mishra, Sahil Yadav, Ms. Vernika Tomar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024 in CONT. CAS(C) 75/2021 passed by a learned [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1605 Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter, “High Court”) whereby the contempt petition filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 3.1 One company by the name of “RBT Private Ltd.” carried out the business of dyeing, printing and trading of fabrics. Rajan Chadha, Rajiv Chadha, Sanjay Arora and Sumit Gupta were the shareholders as well as Directors of the company. Rajan Chadha and Rajiv Chadha (Appellants) had a combined shareholding of 51.36%, Sanjay Arora (Respondent) had 25% and Sumit Gupta had 23.64%. 3.2 On 21st December 2019, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was made and executed by and between the company, Appellants, Respondent, Sumit Gupta and one Shilpa Gupt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.