SUBHASH CHANDER SETHI Vs. SH B R KAKKAR COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF LUDHIANA
LAWS(P&H)-1989-11-47
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 01,1989

SUBHASH CHANDER SETHI Appellant
VERSUS
SH B R KAKKAR COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF LUDHIANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 20, 1984 whereby it was held that :-" i am of the view that no case under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against the respondent. " Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads 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 a Single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court; (b) Where the order of decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court : XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX" This Section came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in D. N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, 1983 (3) S. C. Cases 26 it was held therein that an appeal will lie under Section 19 (1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged conternnor, it does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215.
(2.) IT has been further held that the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not include the jurisdiction to dispose of the case by acquitting him. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, it does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that it should not act in a particular manner, i. e. by imposing punishment.
(3.) IN the present case the learned Single Judge was of the view that no case under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against the respondent. That being so the case is fully covered by the said Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt" of Courts Act is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. We order accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.