V R KARANNA Vs. G OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Observance of obedience to an order of Court is the rule of law and any disobedience shown to the order of the Court to be taken with utmost seriousness since Law-Courts would not permit compliance with the directions of the Law-Courts in its breach rather than in its observance. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has conferred on to the Law-Courts the power to punish an offender in the event there is a violation of the mandate of the Court, the majesty of the Court and the orders of the Court shall have to be observed in no uncertain terms. While it is true that the power is absolute, but some amount of self -restraint ought to be imposed on to the Law-Courts itself by reason of the user of the language "wilful disobedience". The word "wilful" has a special significance and connotation. In common English parlance, it means a deliberate violation or a deliberate disobedience and it is only then and in that event the Law Courts are authorised to deal with the situation as is envisaged in the Act. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Court. But that weapon ought to be exercised on the basis of reasonable certainty as regards the violation of the order of the Court. In the event of there being any doubt, question of taking recourse to the provisions of the Act and punishing an offender would not arise. It is a quasi-criminal offence and as such, even the doctrine of benefit of doubt is made applicable to a contempt proceeding . The law is well settled and we need not dilate much except recording that the contextual facts ought to be gone into and the action ought to be taken on the basis thereof. Therefore, no 'stretch a point' formula can be evolved in the matter of punishing an offender and the same depends on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

(2.) Turning on to the contextual facts, it appears that on 21st Feb. 1997, the learned single Judge has been pleased to pass an order to the following effect :-

(3.) On the factual score, it further appears that some moneys were paid for some period of time, but subsequently the payment stopped. A contempt application by reason therefor has produced an undertaking to pay but subsequently there was stoppage of such a payment as well. This time, however, the explanation is that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kirit Kumar T. Patel, 1998 (I) Lab LJ 1 question of payment in the same rate does not arise and by reason of the factum of payments being made in excess of the entitlement in terms of the law as declared by the Supreme Court and there is no further obligation to make any payment. It is this stand of the appellant which did not find favour with the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has been pleased to record :