ASOK GUPTA Vs. HIRENDRA NATH SAHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The maintainability of this appeal has been challenged on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Sengupta, upon construction of the terms 'in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt'. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Sengupta on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of D. N. Taneja Vs. Bhajanlal, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 26 and also in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahbob S. Allibhay & Anr., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 411.

(2.) We have carefully considered the ratio of the aforesaid decisions. It appears that in none of those cases, there was any finding of contumacious violation of any order. The instant case is distinguishable, as in the instant case, such a finding has been recorded by the learned Judge and the matter was postponed only to enable the alleged contemnors to comply with the order in question and also for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of being heard before punishment is imposed. The exercise of jurisdiction for imposing a punishment can be said to have been undertaken immediately when a violation of an order has been found. Indeed, we feel that such a finding is an index of commence mot of such exercise which may end with imposition of punishment. The existence of a time gap is not a relevant criterion. A reading of the judgment under appeal leaves no room for doubt that the learned Judge was proceeding for imposing such punishment. Therefore, even on the ratio laid down by the two cases relied upon by Mr. Sengupta, the present appeal must be found to be maintainable.

(3.) Xeroxed certified copy of the order may be handed over to the learned Advocates-on-record for the parties on compliance with the formalities.