THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 06-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS. 
MAY 6, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court)/Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : 
Clause 15/s. 19-Letters patent appeal against issuance of contempt 
notice-Limitation-Delay in filing appeal-Applicatio11 under s. 5 of Limita-
C 
tio11 Act-Division Bench of High Cowt holding thats. 5 did not apply to the 
appeaHfigh Court was not 1ight in holding that s. 5 of Limitation Act did 
not apply to the appeal--Delay co11do11ed-Case remitted to Division Be11ch 
of High Court for decision on merits. 
Limitatio11 Act, 1963 : 
D 
Ss. 3, 5, 29(2)-Delay in filing letters patent appeal before Calcutta 
High Court against issuance of contempt notice-Division Bench of High 
Court rejecting application for condonation of delay holding that s. 5 of 
Limitation Act does not apply to the appeal-Held, s. 5 of Limitation Act E 
does apply to the appeals filed against the order of single Judge for the 
enforcement by way of contempt. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9069 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.94 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1009 of 1994. 
S. Hegde, Chandrasekhar, Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das for the Appel-
lants. 
Haradhan Banerjee, Ranjan Mukherjee and Nilmoni Das for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
373 
F 
G 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996]SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The learned single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta exercising 
the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Order No. 241(W) 
of 1992 directed the appellant to grant registration in terms of the West 
Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and to grant subsidy to the 
respondents as per the said scheme. The appellant had carried the 1nattcr 
in appeal against the said order in FMAT No. 3244/92 with an application-
for stay of the operation of the order. We are informed that the appeal is 
pending. Pending appeal the respondent has taken out contempt proceed-
ings against the appellant for non-enforcement of the direction issued by 
the learned single .Judge. Against the contempt notice, the appellants have 
filed a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division bench. The Division Bench 
in the impugned order dated November 4, 1994 passed the order as under: 
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the 
opinion that the delay in filing this appeal being not condonable 
as section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply the appeal is 
dismissed. The application under the Limitation Act is also dis-
missed.1' 
Thus this appeal by special leave. 
It is not in dispute that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts 
Act, an ap{\eal would lie to the Division Bench and limitation of 30 days 
from the date of the order has been prescribed subject to the exclusion of 
the time taken for obtaining the certified copy thereof. We have seen that 
the appellate side rules of the Calcutta High Court applicable to the area 
other than the city of Calcutta had not expressly excluded the application 
of the limitation under the Limitation Act. 
Learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that by opera-
tion of Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the appellate side rules under the letters 
patent the memorandum of appeal drawn up under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC 
G requires to be complied with as envisaged thereunder since it had not been 
provided with any limitation. The Division Bench was, therefore, right in 
holding that the Limitation Act was not extended for an appeal filed under 
clause 15 of the letters patent against the order passed by the learned single 
.Judge under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is seen that 
H under the Contempt of Court Act, the High Court has framed the rules. 
STATE v. KC DAS 
375 
Rule 35 envisages that : 
"In respect of appeals from the orders of any Judge or Bench of 
the Original Side the rules of the Original Side relating to appeals 
and in respect of appeals from the order of any Judge or Bench 
of the Appellate Side, the rules of the Appellate Side shall apply 
mutatis mutan<lis.
11 
Therefore, for the appeals filed under clause 1.5 of the Letters Patent 
against the order of the learned single Judge for the contempt proceedings 
by necessary consequences, the procedure prescribed on the appellate side 
A 
B 
would also be applicable and 

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