MANGILAL Vs. DALCHAND NAGDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner as per Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971") against the order passed by learned single Judge in SB Civil Contempt Petition No.31/ 2003. By the order impugned learned single Judge dismissed the contempt petition preferred by the appellant alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 8.10.2012 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10294/ 2012.

(2.) We are of the considered opinion that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 can be maintained only against an order where the Court exercises its jurisdiction to punish a contemnor and not otherwise. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, 1988 3 SCC 26, took the same view by arriving at the conclusion that the legislature has not conferred any right of appeal on the person alleging contempt. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Taneja read as under:-

(3.) In the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, 1975 3 SCC 535, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 where there is no decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It was held by the Apex Court that exercise of contempt jurisdiction being a matter entirely between the Court and the alleged contemnor, the Court may in its discretion, decline to exercise its jurisdiction for contempt. Where the Court rejects a motion or a reference and declines to initiate the proceedings for contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.