RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 19-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
RAMA NARANG
v.
RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92 of 2008
In
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2003
In
Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1998
JANUARY 19, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(b) – Contempt proceedings
– Scope of – Violation of Consent Order – Petitioner and his sons
(respondents) were the only Directors of a company – Dispute
between petitioner and respondent-sons –  Purported settlement of
the dispute in terms of Consent Order recorded in orders dated 12th
December 2001 and 8th January 2002, of the Supreme Court –
Petitioner-father filed contempt petition alleging that respondent-
sons had violated the terms of the Consent Order – By judgment
dated 15th March, 2007, Supreme Court held respondents guilty of
contempt – Respondents filed Company Petition before the Company
Law Board (CLB), whereupon CLB passed interim order dated 10th
April 2008 – Petitioner filed instant contempt petition alleging that
the order of CLB was violative of the order of Supreme Court dated
15th March 2007 – Whether invoking the jurisdiction of CLB and
entertaining of said proceedings by CLB amounted to contempt –
Held: A person does not commit contempt of court if during pendency
of certain proceedings, he takes recourse to other judicial
proceedings open to him, even though the latter proceedings puts
the other party at a loss – On facts, respondents thought it prudent
to approach CLB by invoking its powers u/ss.397, 398 and 403 of
the Companies Act – Respondents took recourse to legal remedy
available to them under the statutory provisions in compelling
circumstances to safeguard the interest of the Company and its
stakeholders – Petitioner failed to make out a case of wilful,
deliberate and intentional disobedience of any of the directions
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 389
389
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
given by Court or acting in breach of undertaking given to Court –
Contempt Petition accordingly dismissed – Companies Act, 1956 –
ss.397, 398 and 403.
Contempt of Court: Contempt proceedings – Nature and scope
of – Held: The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature
and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in the
other criminal cases – The alleged contemnor is entitled to protection
of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal
jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt –Punishment under
the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in
disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority.
Contempt of Court: Contempt proceedings – Difference from
execution proceedings –  Held: Contempt proceeding is not like an
execution proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure – Before
punishing the contemnor for non-compliance of decision of the
Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience
of any judgment, decree, direction, writ or other process but should
also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional
– The civil court however, while executing a decree against the
judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered as to whether the
disobedience to any judgment or decree was wilful and once the
decree had been passed, it is the duty of the court to execute the
decree, whatever may be the consequences thereof – Code of Civil
Procedure – Execution.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the Court to pass interim orders
pending decision on question of its’ jurisdiction – Held: Even if
objection is raised to the jurisdiction of a forum, it has jurisdiction
to pass interim orders till it finally decides the issue of jurisdiction
and such orders are binding on the parties till the issue of
jurisdiction is decided – If the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction,
it is open to it to modify the orders – However, while in force, the
interim orders passed by such Court have to be obeyed and their
violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is
decided against the plaintiff, provided violation is committed before
the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction – Judgment
/Order – Interim Order.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience or wilful breach – Court
has to record a finding that such a disobedience was wilful &
intentional – There must be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice
by a party intentionally – Where the court is satisfied that such
disobedience is the result of some compelling circumsta

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