T.C. GUPTA versus BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 25-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 170 
T.C. GUPTA 
v. 
BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9476 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 25, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURT: 
c 
Contempt proceedings - A contempt action being in the 
nature of quasi criminal proceedings, the degree of 
satisfaction that must be reached by the court to hold a person 
guilty of commission of contempt would be akin to what is 
required to prove a criminal charge, namely, proof beyond 
0 reasonable doubt. 
Contempt proceedings -- Alleging disobedience of order 
of High Court - High Court holding the appellant guilty of 
commission of contempt of its order and ctirecting for his 
personal appearance for hearing on quantum of punishment 
E - Held: Order of the court in respect of which violation is 
alleged must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and 
defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the 
action with which a contemnor is charged -- In the instant case, 
the interim order of the High Court had directed status quo to 
F be maintained in respect of allotments -- Admittedly, no 
allotments had been made by the appellant or any other 
authority -- Order of High Court set aside - Haryana 
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. 
G 
Contempt proceedings - Interpretation of the order 
alleged to have been disobeyed - Held: Would not be 
appropriate while dealing with a charge of contempt -- In a 
situation like the case in hand, where High Court had directed 
maintenance of. status quo as to allotment, it was not open 
H 
170 
T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS. 
171 
for High Court to hold the contemnor guilty by understanding A 
the said order to mean status quo or a restraint in respect of 
grant of licences under the Act. 
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971: 
s.12, Explanation - Unconditional apology - Held: An 8 
apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected 
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long 
it is made bona fide -- There is nothing on record to suggest 
that the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by 
appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by C 
reasons that are not bona fide. 
In a writ petition instituted in public interest before the 
High Court raising a grievance with regard to the Final 
Development Plan, on the application for stay of the o 
implementation of the Plan, the High Court on 18.8.2011 
directed status quo as to allotment to be maintained. 
However, the appellant who was the Director General, 
Town and Country Planning, granted a licence dated 
28.12.2011 for setting up of a Residential Plotted Colony 
E 
on 100.262 acres of land. This led to the institution of the 
contempt proceedings in which the appellant filed his 
response contending that no allotment was made by him 
or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of 
the order dated 18.08.2011. The appellant also tendered 
F 
his unqualified and unconditional apology. However, 
High Court by its order dated 23.7.2012 held the appellant 
guilty of commission of contempt and passed orders for 
his personal appearance for hearing on the quantum of 
punishment. Aggrieved, the Officer filed the appeal. None 
appeared on behalf of the first respondent i.e. writ G 
contempt petitioner. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A contempt action being in the nature of H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A quasi criminal proceedings, the degree of satisfaction 
that must be reached by the court to hold a person guilty 
of commission of contempt would be akin to what is 
required to prove a criminal charge, namely, proof 
beyond reasonable doubt. The order of the court in 
B respect of which violation is alleged must, therefore, be 
clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and defiance 
thereof must be apparent on the very face of the action 
with which a contemnor is charged. In the instant case, 
the interim order of the High Court had directed status 
C quo to be maintained in respect of allotments. Admittedly, 
no allotments had been made by the appellant or any 
other authority. [para 10) [177-F-H; 178-A] 
1.2 An interpretation of the terms of court's order in 
respect of which disobedience is alleged would not be 
D appropriate while dealing with a charge of contempt. 
Such a charge cannot be brought home by unravelling 
the true meaning of the court's order by a subsequent 
order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack of clarity 
or dicho

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