D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In this case, on an alleged breach or violation of an order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was pleased to come to a finding that "the Court was of the opinion that it is a fit case for taking action for contempt. I hold the contemners guilty of contempt. However, in order to give contemners an opportunity to purge the contempt before I pass the sentence, I adjourn the matter for three weeks to enable the contemner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, the Managing Director of the contemner No. 1, the Vice-President (Marketing) of the contemner No. 1 and the Company Secretary of the contemner No. 1 to delete the said brown cup/mug from the disputed advertisement and to report compliance before August 17, 2005, failing which this Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the contempt. The contemner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall remain present at the next hearing on August 17, 2005 to inform this Court whether or not the order has been complied with. If not, the contemners will run the risk of being sentenced. The office is directed to put up this matter on August 17, 2005 under the heading 'For Orders'." 1]. This order has been challenged in this appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Submission on behalf of the appellant:
(2.) Mr. Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Mr. Pratap Chatterjee and Mr. I. P. Mukherjee, submitted that no order of punishment having been passed, the appeal would not lie under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act in answer to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, with regard to the maintainability of the appeal being appealable under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. According to Mr. Sarkar, no rule was issued in terms of the Contempt Rules of the High Court at Calcutta and the procedure prescribed in the Rules have not been followed. It is only on the basis of an allegation that there was contempt the matter was heard and the alleged contemners were asked to appear in the proceedings though they were not parties to the original proceedings and had ultimately found them guilty of contempt and issued the said direction. There being no order of punishment and no rule having been issued, according to Mr. Sarkar, the Court did not pass the order or decision in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt in order to be appealable under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. He relied on various decisions to which we shall be referring to at appropriate stage. 1]. On the merit, Mr. Sarkar had pointed out that the interim order that was granted restraining the respondent company of which the alleged contemners are office bearers in terms of prayer (b), namely, "(b) An order of injunction restraining the respondents and each of them and their servants, agents or assigns from publishing by telecast or otherwise the aforesaid advertisement referred to in paragraph 10 herein or any advertisement or publicity similar thereto and in any from reflecting adversely on the plaintiff's/petitioner's product "Horlicks" in any manner whatsoever". However, the learned Court was pleased to add that, "this order will not prevent the defendant No.1 from publishing the said advertisement of its product without showing the cup marked with letter 'H' in the said advertisement." Mr. Sarkar submits that his clients have understood the said order that they can continue with the publication of the advertisement substituting the letter 'H' by letter 'X' which they had done. Without issuing any rule as against the alleged contemners and without hearing them on the question of the alleged contempt, it was held that they were guilty of contempt. In the facts, according to Mr. Sarkar, the violation is not deliberate and is an outcome of an understanding of the order; and as such there was no contempt and, therefore, the Court could not have assumed jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Thus in this case, there was no assumption of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Therefore, the appeal could not be maintainable under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed. Therefore, he submits that the order appealed against be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Submission on behalf of the respondent:
(3.) Mr. Anindya Mitra on the other hand, pointed out that the power to punish for contempt by the High Court is not dependent on the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act. It is inherent in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court can assume jurisdiction to punish for contempt even without the Contempt Rules. The power conferred by Article 215 cannot be restricted or curtailed or in any way eclipsed by reason of any rules framed by the High Court. Therefore, when the Court passes an order in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the same becomes amenable to section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. As soon the order comes within the scope and ambit of section 19(1), the right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is ousted. In this case, the appeal being one under section 19(1), Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be invoked. Since this Court lacks determination to hear appeals under section 19(1), therefore the appeal cannot be heard by this Bench. Even though the order might be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent but still then the order having been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt, it attracts section 19(1), the determination whereof is conferred on the other Bench and the matter should be referred to the said Bench. 1]. Mr. Mitra relied on various decisions and made various submissions to which we shall be referring at appropriate stage. The confine :;