SOMESH SACHDEV Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six appeals purporting to be under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, arising out of six contempt Petitions moved by opposite party before a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) A preliminary question arises as to whether the order impugned in these appeals is amenable to appeal under Section 19(1) of the said Act. The contention of Sri, B.B. Paul appearing for the appellants is that the order was appeal able for the following reasons: 1) That the contempt petition before the learned Single Judge was itself not legally maintainable since it arose out Of a matter pending before a subordinate court; 2) That the alleged contempt was in respect of violation of injunction order said to have been passed by the subordinate court and there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the applicant by way of proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A(1) of the Code; and 3) That the contempt proceedings under Act 70 of 1971 cannot be extended beyond the territory of India as provided under Section 1 of the Act. Opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 Yashpal Rai and Smt. Vinod being residents of Canada could not be proceeded against for contempt.

(3.) Before we proceed to consider the merit of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, it will be better to have a close look at the legal position involved. The relevant portion of Section 19 lays down as under: 19 Appeals -- (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) Where the order Or decision is that of single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (a) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.