Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.       6156            OF     2008   (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20679 of 2008)

Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

C.E.S.C. Ltd. … Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

S.B.     Sinha,     J  .

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment  

and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at  

Calcutta dismissing their appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts  

Act, 1970 (for short, ‘the Act’) and holding them guilty of violation of the  

Court’s order dated 31.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said  

Court.

Page 2

3. Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) is a producer of  

some programmes which are telecast.   

4. One of such programmes known as ‘Khoj Khabar’  was telecast by ETV  

(Bangla) alleging some illegal acts and malpractices on the part of the Calcutta  

Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (CESC) an undertaking engaged in generation  

and supply of Electricity in the town of Calcutta.  

5. On or about 13.5.2004, CESC filed a defamation suit in the original side  

of the Calcutta High Court claiming not only damages of 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees  

twenty five crores only) but also a decree for permanent injunction.  Along with  

the said suit, an interlocutory application marked as G.A.1812 of 2004 was filed  

claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :

“a. Injunction be passed restraining the respondents  and each one of them by themselves or by their  servants, agents or otherwise from publishing or  causing to be published by broadcasting/  telecasting any defamatory programmes similar  to that as telecast on March 12, 2004 and March  29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 contained in  Annexure A and B hereto or otherwise in any  manner whatsoever.

b. The respondents be restrained from re- telecasting and/or showing a repeat telecast of  the programme ‘khoj khabar’  shown on March,  12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30,  2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed  to hand over the same.

c. A receiver be appointed over all materials,  documents, films, tapes and materials connected  the said telecast ‘khoj khabar’  made on March  

2

Page 3

12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30,  2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed  to hand over the same.”

6. Indisputably, on or about 17.5.2004 a learned Single Judge of the High  

Court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction in terms of prayer ‘a’ and  

‘b’ thereof only.   

7. It is now not disputed that although some lawyer had appeared for the  

appellants in the said suit but no ‘Vakalatnama’ on their behalf was filed.  It is  

furthermore not in dispute that the said lawyer appeared for a few days and  

thereafter stopped appearing in the suit or in the said interlocutory matter.   

8. Notices having been served upon the appellents, the matter relating to  

confirmation of ad interim order of injunction came up before the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court on 30.11.2005.  While noticing that the defendants in  

the suit had not opposed the prayers of injunction, although they were earlier  

represented through counsel, it was opined that apart from the order of interim  

injunction as prayed for in prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the interlocutory application, a  

receiver should also be appointed, holding :

“Having regard to the nature of the matter, I think the  order of injunction will not subserve the interest of  justice as there is possibility to telecast the same from  programme recorded in this disc by the defendants  and/or their agents and/or servants.  In order to prevent  further telecasting or propagating of this slanderous  statement I am inclind to pass order in terms of prayer  (c) of the petition.  Accordingly, Mr. Subrata  Mookherjee, Advocate of bar Association, Room No.1  

3

Page 4

and Mr.Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Advocate of Bar  Association, Room No.2 High Court are appointed as  Joint Receivers with a direction to take possession of  all material documents, films and materials connected  with the said programme.  “Khoj Khabar’  telecast on  12th March, 2004, 29th March, 2004 and 30th April,  2004 at 10.00 pm and also copies of CD, if they are  available in that office.  The Receiver shall make an  enquiry as to whether these cassettes have been  distributed to any other person or persons and to whom  and the person in charge and/or the director of the first  defendant, are directed to disclose by making a  statement before the Receiver whether any copy of CD  has been distributd to any other person or persons in  any manner whatsoever or not.  This matter is  otherwise disposed of.”

9. The learned receivers who were supposed to have taken prompt action  

failed and/or neglected do so.  They did not visit the office of the company for  

taking possession of the relevant documents and the DV (wrongly stated in the  

order as CDs) immediately after the said order was passed.  It is stated at the Bar  

that the time for filing a report was extended.

10. Appellants, however, contend that on 11.1.2006 some representatives of  

CECS visited their office and asked them to handover all materials connected  

with the telecast.  They were allegedly threatened that if the materials were not  

handed over, they would be in contempt.

11. This stand on the part of the appellant is, however, denied and disputed by  

CESC.

4

Page 5

It now stands admitted that a copy of the said order was not served on the  

appellants.  No copy of the order was sent to them by the respondent.  Even the  

learned Joint Receivers did not intimate the appellant about their appointment.   

12. The Joint Receivers appointed by the High Court, however, visited the  

office of the appellant on 14.1.2006.  They asked the appellants to hand over all  

the documents and CDs.  As according to the appellants such documents had  

already been handed over to the representatives of the CESC, they expressed  

their inability to do so.  Minutes of mexercise for leg pain reduceeeting were  

recorded which are to the following terms :

“In terms of the Hon’ble Courts order, we approached  Mr. Sanat Ray to handover the materials documents  films connected with the said programme telecast on  12.03.2004, 29.03.2004, 30.04.2004 at 10 am and also  the copies of the CDs and also enquired Mr. Ray  regarding the CD whether the has or his representative  has been distributed to any other person or persons in  any manner.

We Joint receivers asked Mr. Ray to hand over  the CDs, films and materials for the above dates.  Mr.  S. Ray submits that they never telecast any news  through CD, they used to telecast through Cassettes  (DV).

Mr. Ray further submits that they used to show  the news programme by DV Cassette only.  Not by any  film or CD and they did not have any films or  documents or master CD or Cassettes with him nor did  he hand over did he has hand over to any one.

All of us were taken to the Cassette Library by  Mr. Ray, we thoroughly checked each cassette and  films and other documents in the said cassette Library  Rooms.  In presence of the abovenamed person we did  

5

Page 6

not find any CD of the above dates, films, documents  and cassettes.  We have collected a new sealed cassette  from the rack of the cassette Library.  It has been  submitted by Mr. Ray that they used to telecast their  daily programme through such cassettes.

We the Joint Receivers tried our best to get the CD and  Cassettes, documents and films from Khoj Khabar  Office in presence of the plaintiff and their  representative but found nothing.

Mr. Ray further submits that on 11th January 2006 a  group of four persons who identified themselves as  officers of CESC and staff of Court came to Mr. Ray,  and after showing the Order of the Court dated  30.11.2005 took away the Cassettes as Mr. Ray was  perturbed he could not collect the names of the persons  and record their identity.  This has been done in  presence of some staf of Khoj Khabar namely :

1. Mr. Shankar Saha who maintains the daily telecast  Register.

2. Mr. Ratan Das who maintains the Car records.

3. Mr. Rabi Shankar Saha, Assistant of Ratan Das,  and

4. Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, Chief Cameraman.

However, Mr. Samar Ray lastly stated that he could  recognize those aforesaid persons if he finds them.”

13. The matter was placed before the learned Single Judge on 18.1.2006.  In  

view of the aforementioned minutes of meeting, appellant No.3 herein (Sanat  

Kumar Ray) was asked to affirm an affidavit as regards the events which  

purported to have taken place on 11.1.2006.  An affidavit was affirmed.   

14. In view of the said affidavit, vis-a-vis, the minutes of meeting prepared by  

the learned receivers and the stand taken by the respondent company herein, trial  

6

Page 7

was ordered on the following issues by the learned Single Judge in terms of an  

order dated 15.3.2006 :

“1. Whether any CECS official visited the office of  Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. as alleged  in paragraph 6 or not?

2. Whether material documents and material  connected with the programme Khoj Khabar and  CDs and cassettes were handed over by the said  deponent, Sanat Ray CESC officials on 11  January, 2006?”

15. It is not in dispute now that having regard to the change in determination,  

the trial has begun before another learned Single Judge on and from 9.6.2006  

and the same is yet to be completed.

16. The contempt matter, however, keeping in view the provisions contained  

in Rule 5 and 6 of the Contempt of Courts (Calcutta High Court) Rules, 1975  

was placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed the order dated  

30.11.2005.   

17. The learned Judge proceeded to hear the contempt matter on affidavits  

filed by the parties although the trial on the aforementioned issues was  

incomplete.   

18. Each one of the alleged contemnors was held guilty of contempt of court  

on the premise that they have violated the directions issued to them to hand over  

the documents and DVD Cassettes and other materials to the Joint Receiver.

7

Page 8

19. Before taking note of the findings of the learned Judge, we may notice  

that in the contempt proceedings, the appellants, inter alia, raised the following  

contentions :

“After examination and cross examination were over  on the aforesaid issues the present application for  contempt has been taken out on 26th of September,  2006.  I am told that issue has not been decided nor  there is fact findings as to whereabouts of the DV  (mother) cassettes.  The present application has been  made for willful and deliberate violation of the order  passed by this Court on 30th November 2005 by not  handing over DV (mother) cassettes and other  materials to the joint Receivers.”

20. The plea of the appellants, therefore, was that even if they had committed  

an error in handing over the material and DV to the representative of the CESC  

rather than the joint receivers, it was a bona fide one.  They tendered  

unconditional apology therefor.   

The learned Single Judge, however, as regards the plea of the Director of  

the Company held :

“In my view he should not have left Calcutta until the  order was carried out or if he had any urgent business  he should have approached this Court and asked for  time for carrying out order.  From analysis as above it  no doubt establishes his deliberate and willful violation  of the order of the Court.  Therefore, I hold him guilty  for committing contempt of the court as the DV  (mother) cassettes were not handed over to the Joint  Receivers.”

As regards, Shri Sanat Ray, it was opined :

8

Page 9

“While examining the stand taken by the respondent  No.4, I found that he is an over smart person and he  has made all possible effort to outwit the officers of  the Court if not Court itself.  He is literate and English  knowing person and having complete understanding of  the purport of the order.  In spite of that he had taken a  stand at first that he allegedly handed over DV  cassettes to CESC officials being accompanied by the  Court officials, before Receiver and then in his  affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings as well as  the affidavit filed earlier point of time after the visit of  the Receivers on 14th of January, 2006, he stated that  he handed over the same to CESC officials.  This  version is unacceptable as none of the persons namely  (1) Mr. Shankar Saha (2) Mr. Rattan Das (3) Mr. Rabi  Shankar Saha and (4) Mr. Sambhu Ghosh, has come  toward to corroborate testifying in Court that on 11th  January 2006 CESC officials visited the office of the  first respondent and respondent No.4 handed over the  DV (mother) cassettes to them.  The CESC officials  have denied the fact of the visit on 11th January, 2006  which was a holiday.  Thus, CESC officials have also  stated on oath in the trial on evidence they did not visit  on that date nor did they have any occasion to visit on  that date the office of the respondent No.1 as they were  enjoying holidays.  It is stranger no suggestions was  put to them by the learned counsel for Mr. Sanat  Kumar Ray that they did visit on that date and DV  (mother) cassettes were handed over to the CESC  officials.  Therefore, it is clear that a concocted story  has been made out to justify their so called mistake in  handing over.”

So far as the anchor, Krishna Kumar Mukherjee, is concerned, it was held:

“As far as the respondent No.3 Krishna Kishore  Mukherjee is concerned, I am of the view that he was  also responsible to see that the materials are handed  over in terms of prayer (c) to the Joint Receivers as the  direction was also binding upon him.  Had he had any  difficulty he could have said this by filing affidavit that  he is not connected with the affairs of the respondent  

9

Page 10

No.1.  He was the anchor of telecasting this  programme so he had responsibility and should have  taken at least some measure to help the Receivers to  take possession of the DV (mother) cassettes  remaining present before the Receiver.  So his act and  conduct amounts to aiding and abetting commission of  contempt of Court.  I hold him also guilty for  committing contempt of this Court.”

21. An appeal in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act was preferred by the  

appellants before the Division Bench, urging :

1. Appellants became aware of the order of the Court dated 30.11.2005  

whereby the joint receivers were appointed only on 10.1.2006 as the said  

order had admittedly never been communicated to the appellants, and  

thus, the question of any deliberate or willful violation thereof did not  

arise.

2. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the respondents had  

admitted that they had not served any copy of the order to the appellant  

prior to 10.1.2006.

3. The findings of the learned Single that appellant No.3, Sanat Roy, was  

over smart, literate and English knowing was uncalled for as he has only  

deposed before another Judge and, therefore, the learned Judge had no  

occasion to note his demeanour.   

10

Page 11

4. The learned Trial Judge furthermore committed an error in opining that  

none of the four persons who were allegedly present had come forward to  

corroborate his testimony, as the trial itself is incomplete.   

5. The finding that no suggestion was put to them by the learned counsel of  

Mr. Sanat Ray that some personnels had visited their office on that date  

and DV Cassettes were handed over to the CESC officials is incorrect and  

such suggestions, in fact, had been given.  

22. The Division Bench of the High Court entered into the question as to  

whether the purported contempt committed by the appellant was a civil  

contempt or criminal contempt, which was not necessary.   

While affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge,  

however, the Division Bench opined :

“It is well-known fact that the proceeding is only a  form of execution and it appears to us that on the given  facts, there is no criminality in the disobedience and  the contempt, such as it is, is not criminal but the  contemnors, in our opinion, excepting the appellant in  APOT No.126 of 2008, Krishna Kishore  Mukhopadhyay, we hold that the Hon’ble First Court  correctly assessed the facts of the case and held that  they have committed contempt of court.  

Hence, we do not find that there is any reason to  interfere with the order so passed by the Court and  after analyzing the decisions cited before us, we have  not been able to find out any clear distinction between  ‘civil’  and ‘criminal’  contempt and the contempt  committed by the contemnors on the given facts  cannot be broadly classified as criminal contempt.

11

Page 12

Hence, we uphold the said order and dismiss these  appeal, save and except, in our considered opinion, on  the facts of the case and the materials on record as  placed before us, we hold that a contempt in respect of  the Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay cannot be  proceeded with, since on the given facts, with utmost  respect to His Lordship we come to the conclusion that  the said Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay, being the  appellant in the other matter (APOT No.126 of 2008),  cannot be said to be responsible to hand over the  materials to the Joint Receivers.  Since we are of the  opinion that he had acted only on the date of  presentation of the said news telecasted on the said  date and, therefore, on the date of visit of the Joint  Receivers at the said premises to collect the mother  cassette, no role had to play by him to handover the  said cassette to the Joint Receivers.”

23. Before adverting to consider the rival submissions of the learned counsel  

for the parties, we may notice some subsequent events after this special leave  

petition was filed.   

Appellants appeared before the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2008 when a  

fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on each of them for     the     time     being  .  Appellants  

undertook to produce the CDs containing the programme in compliance of the  

order dated 14.3.2008.  The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 29.8.2008,  

opined that the order dated 22.8.2008 has not sufficiently been complied with  

and posted the matter for hearing on 5.9.2008, stating :

“They have also brought a compact disk of the  offending programme.  According to me, this is not the  material which was asked to be handed over to the  Receiver.  So this is not accepted by the Court.  At  least a pretended attempt has been made to carry out  the order of the Court.  But I have not got any  

12

Page 13

materials to come to a conclusion that the same has  been collected from Akash Bangla Channel.  Perhaps  this can be copied from the programme already telecast  subsequent to passing of the order dated 22nd August,  2008.  I refuse to accept the same as being the  materials which were asked to be produced in terms of  the earlier order.  For this purpose, I adjourn this  matter till 5th September, 2008.  the contemnors will  reappear again on the next date at 3.00 p.m. once  again.

I make it clear deposit of fine will be an ad hoc  arrangement and after having found that the order has  been carried out fully this Court will pass appropriate  order.

After passing of the above order, it is submitted  for the first time on behalf of the contemnors that the  name of the contemnor No.2, in whose name the Rule  has been issued, is not debojyoti Basu but it should be  read as Dibyojyoti Basu.  I have checked the  Permanent Account Number Card of the contemnor  No.2 and also the photograph appearing in the said  card.  I find similarity between the contemnor No.2  and the photograph and the name appears in the said  card is Dibyojyoti Basu.  In view of the revelation of  the above fact I direct the learned Advocate-on-record  of the contemnor No.2 to produce the papers used  before the Appeal Court.  I also direct the Department  to produce the original affidavit-in-opposition used in  the contempt application by the aforesaid contemnor  No.2 on the next date of hearing.”

24. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellants, submitted :  

(1) That as trial on the issues framed by the learned Single Judge himself in  

terms of order dated 15.3.2006 is admittedly incomplete, punishment for  

13

Page 14

alleged contempt of court could not have been imposed without waiting  

for a finding of fact thereupon.   

(2) In view of the terms of the order dated 30.11.2005 as CDs, materials and  

documents were to be handed over to the Joint Receivers, only if they  

were available with them and as they were not available on 14.1.2006,  

appellants cannot be said to have committed contempt of the order of the  

learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2005.   

(3) The purpose and object of the order passed by the High Court, as would  

appear from the Orders dated 17.5.2004 and 30.11.2004 being to restrain  

the broadcast of the programme ‘Khoj Khabar’  and in view of the  

admitted fact that there has been no subsequent telecast of the programme  

and, thus, the order of injunction having been complied with, the  

judgment of conviction passed against the appellants is wholly  

unsustainable, particularly when the said order dated 30.11.2005 was not  

even known to the appellant prior to 10.1.2006.   

(4) The Joint Receivers made a surprise visit only on 14.1.2006 and having  

regard to the fact that nothing had been suppressed from the High Court or  

the Joint Receivers, a case for initiating a proceeding under the Act was  

not made out.  In any event, as the trial is incomplete wherein the four  

witnesses are yet to depose with regard to the events which took place on  

14

Page 15

11.1.2006, the High Court committed an illegality in passing the  

impugned judgment.

25. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondents would, however, support the impugned judgment.  It was contended  

that although the categorical stand taken by the contemnors-respondents before  

the learned Single Judge was that no DV Cassettes were available with them  

when the Joint Receiver visited their office on 14.1.2006, they purported to  

produce the same before the learned Single Judge on 29.8.2008, which were not  

the original CDs, it has rightly been found that misrepresentations had been  

made at all levels by the alleged contemnors and, thus, this Court should not  

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of  

India.

26. Civil contempt has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean :

“b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any  judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other  process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking  given to a court;”

27. Herein appellants are charged with commission of contempt of the High  

Court on two counts that : (1) they did not hand over the materials to the Joint  

Receiver; and (2) they affirmed a false affidavit regarding the events on  

11.1.2006.   

15

Page 16

The High Court failed to notice that a learned Single Judge of the High  

Court passed an interim order only in terms of prayers ‘a’  and ‘b’.  It is not a  

case of the respondent that the appellants have violated the terms of the said ex  

parte ad interim order.  Assuming that some lawyer had appeared on behalf of  

the respondents on earlier dates, the learned Judge himself had noticed that the  

appellants were not represented on date when the order appointing Receiver was  

passed.   

28. In the aforementioned premise, it was obligatory on the part of the  

respondents and/or the High Court itself to communicate the said order to the  

appellants.  The High Court appears to have proceeded on the presumption that  

the appellants were aware thereof despite a categorical stand taken by  

respondent itself that the said order had not been served.  We do not find from  

the judgment of the learned Single Judge that even the High Court  

communicated the order to the appellant which course ordinarily should have  

been resorted to.

29. We fail to understand as to on what basis, the Joint Receivers were  

appointed.  No prayer was made therefor on the said date.  No application was  

filed.  The matter was placed before the learned Single Judge only for  

confirmation of the ad interim order passed and not for deciding on the prayer  

(c) concerned.  A bare perusal of the said order would clearly indicate that even  

a prima facie finding had not been arrived at warranting appointment of receiver.  

16

Page 17

No reason has been assigned in support thereof.  No jurisdictional fact that it  

was just and proper to appoint a receiver as is required under Order XL Rule 1  

of the Code of Civil Procedure was recorded far less why the same was found to  

be necessary and emergent.  In any event, a show-cause notice at the first  

instance should have been issued.

30. When the receivers were appointed, no question arose to issue any  

direction upon the appellants.  In fact, no such direction had been issued asking  

them to hand over all documents, papers and CDs.

31. Mr. Rao, on a querry made by us contended that the issues were framed  

on 15.3.2006 in the main suit.  The said contention does not appear to be correct.  

The proceedings started only on the basis of the minutes of meeting dated  

14.1.2006 presented by the Joint Receivers before the High Court.  The enquiry  

was directed for the purpose of finding out as to whether the CECS officials had  

indeed visited the office of the company on 11.1.2006 and whether the CDs and  

cassettes had been handed over by the said Shri Sanat Ray to its officials or not.  

It may be a step for initiation of a contempt proceeding but such a trial was  

being conducted for the purpose of finding out the truth as to whether the court’s  

order dated 30.11.2005 had, in fact, been violated or not.  If a finding of fact was  

necessary to be arrived as for ascertaining as to whether the contemnors-

respondents have violated the order of the court, it is difficult to comprehend  

why the trial was not allowed to be completed.   

17

Page 18

Indisputably, the majesty of the Court is required to be upheld.  The Court  

must see that its orders are complied with.  But for the said purpose, a roving  

enquiry is not permissible.   

Several proceedings which seek to achieve the same purpose are unknown  

to the process of law.  If the trial was to be held on the issues framed by the  

learned Single Judge, it should have been allowed to be brought to its logical  

conclusion.  When the trial was incomplete, we fail to see any reason why the  

contempt proceeding was heard on affidavits.  Even if that was done, reliance  

was sought to be placed on the depositions of the witnesses in the said enquiry,  

which was admittedly incomplete.  Witnesses affirming affidavits before the  

learned Single Judge were not being cross-examined so as to enable the counsel  

for the parties to draw their attention to the earlier statement made by them in  

terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

32. On what basis comments against Sanat Rai were made that he was ‘over  

smart person’  although he did not examine himself before the learned Single  

Judge is not known.  It will bear repetition to state that on the one hand the  

witnesses in support of the said statement of the said Shri Sanat Ray was yet to  

be examined in the trial and on the other hand the learned Judge commented that  

his testimony remained uncorroborated.  Attention of the learned Judge  

furthermore was not drawn to the Question No.25 which was put to Shri Aditya  

18

Page 19

Goswami who examined himself on behalf of CECS and Question No.20 put to  

Shri Anil Chatterjee, which are as under :

“25. As regards incident dated 11.1.2006 when it has  been said by the defendant that CESC personnel took  away the cassettes from their office –  what is your  comment about the same?

Actually, I am the dealing officer, I was entrusted with  this case.  I know that I am the only one who is  entrusted so I know the fact, except myself nodbody  would possibly visit the office of the Three Cheers  Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and furthermore on 11.1.2006  it was the holiday under the NI Act on account of Id- ul-Juha.  CESC office was closed on that date.

XXX XXX XXX

20. Can you say on authority that on 11th January,  2006 none from the CESC office went to the office of  the defendant?

I can say upto where my knowledge goes nothing  beyond that.”

33. The Division Bench of the High Court, unfortunately, did not bestow its  

consideration on these vital aspects of the matter.   

No sufficient or cogent reason has been assigned therein.  The purpose  

and object of initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of the said Act is  

only to see that the order of the Court is complied with and not to unnecessarily  

proceed against persons as if they are petty criminals.  We are pained to notice  

that even the Director of the company who was not in town was hauled up for  

contempt opining that he should not have left Calcutta until the order was  

19

Page 20

carried out or if he had any urgent business, he should have approached the court  

and asked for time for carrying out the order.  We have noticed hereinbefore that  

the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the appellants were directed to  

hand over the materials, documents, film scripts and materials connected with  

the telecast ‘Khoj Khabar’;, it was not so.  We have furthermore noticed  

hereinbefore that the Court even did not bother to see that the order of the court  

was intimated to the appellants.  Why the order dated 30.11.2005 was not made  

known to the appellants till 10.1.2006 is baffling and despite the same it was  

observed that the said order was within the specific knowledge of the appellants.  

In our opinion, the facts and materials placed before us do not establish that  

there was any willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of the  

appellant.

34. Mr. Rao, when asked, failed to satisfy us that the rules framed by the High  

Court had been complied with.  If the trial had begun with a view to find as to  

whether the statement of the appellant that he had handed over the materials to  

the CECS officials was correct or not, why another proceeding should be  

initiated simultaneously before another learned Judge is beyond anybody’s  

comprehension.    

Contempt of court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all  

seriousness.   

20

Page 21

In Mrityunjoy     Das     &     Anr.   v. Sayed     Hasibur     Rahman     &     Ors.   [(2001) 3  

SCC 739], this Court held :

“13. Before however, proceeding with the matter any  further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the  Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather  cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing  itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct.  The court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the  conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of  justice which if allowed, would even permeate in our  society (vide Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia).  This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law  courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous  conduct or obstruction the majesty of law.”

In Chhotu     Ram   v. Urvashi     Gulati     &     Anr.   [(2001) 7 SCC 530], this Court  

held that a contempt of court proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, the  

burden to prove would be upon the person who made such an allegation.  A  

person cannot be sentenced on mere probability.  Willful disobedience and  

contumacious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be punished.  Such  

a finding cannot be arrived at on ipse dixit of the court.  It must be arrived at on  

the materials brought on record by the parties.

Yet again in Anil     Ratan     Sarkar     &     Ors.   v. Hirak     Ghosh     &     Ors.   [(2002) (4)  

SCC 21], it was opined :

“15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere  disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to  amount to a ‘civil contempt’  within the meaning of  Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 –  the element of  willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring  home the charge within the meaning of the Act and  

21

Page 22

lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and  the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one  such interpretation – the act or acts cannot be ascribed  to be otherwise contumacious in nature.  A doubt in  the matter as regards the willful nature of the conduct  if raised, question of success in a contempt petition  would not arise.”

In Dr.     Prodip     Kumar     Biswas   v. Subrata     Das     &     Ors.   [(2004) (4) SCC 573],  

after noticing various provisions of the Calcutta High Court Rules held :

“The Court may, however, in a contempt proceeding  take such evidence as may be considered necessary.  Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up.  In fact, it  seems that neither was any notice of contempt issued  to the appellant nor any hearing took place except what  has been noticed hereinbefore.

The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be  exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act  adversely affects the administration of justice or which  tends to impede its course or tends to shake public  confidence in the judicial institutions.  This  jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act  complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or  dignity of the courts.  The purpose of contempt  jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the  courts of law.  (See Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union  of India).”

Recently in Sushila     Raje     Holkar   v. Anil     Kak     (Retd.)   [2008 (7) SCALE  

484], this Court held :

“It is a well settled principle of law that if two  interpretations are possible of the order which is  ambiguous, a contempt proceeding would not be  maintainable.”

22

Page 23

It was furthermore opined that the effect and purport of the order should  

be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety.   

35. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, did not advert  

to any of the aforementioned contentions of the appellant.  

36. Although, it was not necessary for us to advert to the subsequent events,  

Mr. Rao himself has sought to draw inspirations from the subsequent conduct of  

the parties impelling us to refer the same.

If Appellants have been found to be guilty of commission of contempt,  

they should have been punished on the same day.  Why the extra ordinary  

procedure of asking them to appear on another day for hearing on quantum of  

sentence was adopted is not understood.  They had not been asked to purge their  

contempt.  They made a voluntary statement that they would produce the CDs  

which should have been taken at its face value or should have been rejected.   

We also do not appreciate that a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the  

appellants by an order dated 22.8.2008 ‘for the time being’.  We have not been  

shown any provision in the Act or any precedent that a court may impose  

sentences upon the contemnors in piece meal.   

So far as the submission of Mr. Rao that original cassettes have not been  

produced is concerned, we must notice that what was produced by the appellants  

was the CDs taken from (ETV Bangla).  What has been produced before the  

23

Page 24

learned Single Judge on 29th August were not the DV Cassettes which Sanat Rai  

stated to have been parted with on 11.1.2006.

37. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be  

sustained.  It is set aside.  Consequently, the orders dated 30.11.2005 and  

22.8.2008 are also set aside.  

The High Court, in our opinion, would be well advised to take up hearing  

of the suit as expeditiously as possible. If notice of suit has not been served upon  

the company, it may be done forthwith.  The company may file its written  

statement, if not already done, within three weeks from the date.

38. As orders of injunctions in terms of Prayer ‘a’ and ‘b’ are in operation and  

CDs are already in possession of the court, we in exercise of our jurisdiction  

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the contempt  

proceedings itself be dropped.  The amount of fine deposited by the appellants  

should be refunded by the High Court forthwith.   

39. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs  

payable by Respondent No.1 to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority,  

Calcutta.  Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.

……………………….J. (S.B. Sinha)

……………………….J.

24

Page 25

(Cyriac Joseph) New Delhi; October 20, 2008

25