Order Asking Alleged Contemnor To Explain Why Charges Shouldn't Be Framed Not Appealable Under Contempt Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable against an order merely directing an alleged contemnor to appear and explain why contempt charges should not be framed. The Court, however, clarified that the aggrieved party is not left remediless and may avail the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal.A contempt...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable against an order merely directing an alleged contemnor to appear and explain why contempt charges should not be framed.
The Court, however, clarified that the aggrieved party is not left remediless and may avail the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal.
A contempt petition was filed before the High Court in which the appellant along with 2 others was summoned by the Court to explain as to why charges should not be framed against them. Appellant challenged the interim order of the Contempt Court under Section 19(1).
Relying on Section 19(1), Appellant's counsel argued that appeal lies from “any order” or “decision” of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish someone for contempt before a bench of two or more judges.
Counsel for respondents argued that the order under challenge did not determine any rights of the parties. It was argued that the “any order” should be read in conjunction with High Court's power to punish for contempt. It was argued that unless an order of punishment was passed, the appeal was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Chunilal Nanda & Ors., wherein the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for filing appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay held,
“In the case at hand, we find that there was absolutely no punishment till date imposed on the alleged contemnor. The only direction of the learned Single Judge was that the respondent in the contempt petition would appear and would explain as to why charges be not framed against them.”
Dismissing the appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as not maintainable, the Court observed that the appellant had the remedy to file an appeal under the Letters Patent Act.
Case Title: Dhanendra Kumar Jain, Secretary, C/M Digambar Jain College v. Sunil Kumar Jain And 6 Others
Appearances: Nipun Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Naman Agarwal, counsel for the appellant; Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Counsel assisted by Ritesh Upadhyay, counsel for respondent no.1 and Rahul Agarwal, Senior Counsel assisted by Avneesh Tripathi, counsel for the respondent-University.