When One Judge Has Held Party Guilty Of Contempt, Another Judge Of Same HC Can't Take Contrary View : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that once a Judge of a High Court has held a party guilty of contempt, another Single Judge of the same Court cannot re-examine whether contempt was actually committed.

"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 afinding that the Respondent was not guilty of contempt," a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed.

Doing so, the Court said, violates judicial propriety and exceeds jurisdiction. Also, it amounts to a single bench exercising appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a coordinate bench, which is impermissible.

The Supreme Court emphasized that once contempt is found by a Judge, the only questions left are whether the contempt has been purged and what punishment, if any, should follow.

The ruling came in an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment where a later Single Judge dismissed a contempt petition previously upheld by another Judge. 

The case arose from a business dispute involving RBT Private Ltd., where the appellants alleged that respondent Sanjay Arora violated court and arbitral orders after failing to comply with obligations under a Memorandum of Understanding. A contempt petition was filed, and in December 2023, a High Court Judge held the respondent guilty of contempt and granted time to purge it.

However, following a roster change, another Single Judge took up the matter and ruled that no contempt had occurred, discharging the show cause notice. The Supreme Court found this to be impermissible, stating that the later Judge had effectively reviewed and overturned the prior finding, a step only an appellate court could take.

"In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that the Respondent had not committed contempt amounts to sitting in an appeal over the order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 5th December 2023," the Court said.

The Court clarified that if the respondent was aggrieved with the initial order, the proper recourse was an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act before the division bench.

The Supreme Court set aside the second judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for proceedings from the stage of the earlier contempt finding.

Appearances -  For Appellant: Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate Rohan Jaitley, AOR Tanvir Nayar, Advocates Akshay Sharma, Bhuvnesh Sehgal, Dev Pratap Shahi

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri, AOR Vernika Tomar

Case : Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Click here to read the judgment