Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Court :
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Brief :
Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempts of subordinate Courts - Power of High Court to punish - Whether Company Law Board (CLB) is judicially subordinate to High Court and, even if its administrative control is held not to vest in High Court under article 235 of Constitution, it would nonetheless be a Court subordinate to High Court under section 10 - Held, yes - Whether while subordinate Court may make a reference in case of a contempt of such Court or Advocate General may make a motion in that behalf, rule 5 of Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 does not bar High Court from taking cognizance of contempt, or in taking action for contempt of subordinate Courts under section 10 either suo motu or on a petition made by any person - Held, yes - Whether even if regulations 44 and 47 of Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 and Order xxxix, rule 2A, of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are held to be a law relating to Contempt of Courts, these provisions would not preclude High Court, in an appropriate case, from taking action for contempt of orders of CLB - Held, yes Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Actions for contempt - Limitation for - Whether limitation under section 20 has to be computed with reference to date of filing of application for initiation of contempt and, therefore, if an application to initiate contempt proceedings is filed within one year from date on which contempt is committed, it would amount to initiation of contempt proceedings within limitation under section 20 - Held, yes Facts The petitioner filed the instant contempt case alleging that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 9 wilfully disobeyed and grossly violated the CLB’s orders. It was the petitioner’s case that he filed a company petition under section 397/398, wherein he sought for various interim reliefs including an order to prevent the sale or dispossession of the company’s land and to prevent injury being caused to persons who were allotted flats in the project; that when the said petition was pending under consideration, the respondents demolished the superstructure of the building necessitating his filing an application requesting the CLB to interfere and grant necessary order with regard the existing structure; that the CLB granted status quo vide its order dated 18-7-2005 but despite that, the respondents continued to demolish the building and when those violations were brought to CLB’s notice on 20-7-2005, it appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who after visiting/inspecting the dispute site, submitted his report dated 31-7-2005 confirming that one structure was completely and the other was partially demolished; that, consequently, the CLB, vide its order dated 4-10-2005 held, inter alia, that the respondents had demolished the entire disputed structures in utter violation of its order. The CLB further held that the High Court, being the CLB’s appellate authority, CLB must be deemed to be a subordinate court within the ambit of the Act and, therefore, the High Court could exercise powers of dealing with contempt of the CLB. The CLB, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act so as to prosecute the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed CLB’s order dated 18-7-2005. The respondent’s case was that the contempt case was liable to be dismissed inter alia, on the grounds that since the CLB had merely left it open to the petitioner to approach the High Court and had not made a reference itself, the High Court would not take cognizance of contempt, and that the contempt case as filed was even otherwise barred by limitation.

Citation :
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH N. Venkata Swamy Naidu v. Sri Sri Surya Teja Constructions (P.) Ltd.