http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD IDRIS AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/08/1984

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1826            1985 SCR  (1) 598  1984 SCC  (4) 216        1984 SCALE  (2)213

ACT:      Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Section 19˜1).      High Court-Single Judge-ordering committal for contempt of court  Appealed before  Division  Bench-Dismissed-Whether statutory right of appeal lies to supreme Court.

HEADNOTE:      The two  petitioners in the Special Leave Petition were committed to  the civil  jail for  a period  of one month by Single Judge  of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971,  as they  had acted  in breach  of an  undertaking given by  them in  a suit  pending in  the High  Court.  The appeal preferred  by the  petitioners under Section 19(1) of the Act to a Division     Bench was dismissed.      In the  Special Leave  Petition  it  was  contended  on behalf of  the petitioners  that :  though the  petition had been filed  under Article  136 the petitioners have, in law, an appeal  as of  right under  Section 19(1),  and  (2)  the Single Judge  was not  justified  in  giving  directions  in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court.      Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, ^      HELD:1. If the order of committal for contempt of court is made  by a  Single Judge  of the High Court, there is one statutory right  of appeal  to a  Division Bench of not less than two  Judges. If  the order  of committal of contempt of court is  made by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court. Where an appeal is filed against the order of the Single Judge to a Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal gets  exhausted and  there is  no  further  right  of appeal to the Supreme Court.[600B.C]      2. As there was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the  petitioners, the  Single Judge  was quite  right  in giving appropriate directions to close the breach. [600E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 9395 of 1984.      From the Judgment and order dated the 10th August, 1984 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 721 of 1984.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    R. N. Keshwani for the Petitioners. 599      R. Karenjawala for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA  REDDY,   J.  On   an  allegation   that  the petitioners had  acted in  breach of an undertaking given by them in Suit No. 2308 of 1983 in the High Court of Bombay, a notice was  issued to them to show cause why they should not be committed  for contempt  of court. Cause was sought to be shown. A learned Single Judge of the High Court recorded the following finding:           "In my judgment the action of defendants Nos 4 and      6 clearly  shows utter  contempt for  the orders of the      court and  under  taking  given  by  them.  I  have  no      hesitation  in   holding  that  these  defendants  have      committed gross  contempt of  Court...in  my  judgment,      there is no circumstance whatsoever to take any lenient      view of  the gross  contempt committed  by defendants 4      and 6  and both of them are liable to be punished under      the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act."      On those  findings the  learned Single  Judge committed each of the two petitioners to the civil jail for the period of one month. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High  Court under s 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench and the present Special  Leave Petition  has been  filed against the judgment of  the Division  Bench. Shri  Ramesh  N.  Keswani. learned counsel  for the petitioners submits that though the Petition for  Special Leave  to Appeal  has been filed under Article 136  of the  Constitution, the  petitioners have, in law, an appeal as of right under s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.  The submission  has only  to be  stated  to  be rejected as  totally lacking  in substance. Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is as follows:           "An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or      decision of  High Court in 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 or decision is that of a Bench, to           the 600           Supreme Court;      Provided that  where the  order or  decision is that of      the Court  of the  Judicial Commissioner  in any  Union      Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."      If the order of committal for contempt or Court is made by a  Single Judge of the High Court, there is one statutory right of  appeal to  a Division  Bench of  not less than two Judges of  the Court  If the order of committal for contempt of court  is made  by a Bench, an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme  Court. Where  an appeal  is filed  against  the order of  the learned  Single Judge to a Division Bench, the statutory right  or appeal  gets exhausted  and there  is no further right  of appeal  to the Supreme Court Shri Keshwani cited to  us  Purushottam  Das  Goel  v.  Hon.  Justice  B.S Dhillon.(1) The decision is entirely irrelevant.      On merits,  the  learned  counsel  submitted  that  the undertaking  given  was  not  in  respect  of  the  property concerned and  that in any case the learned Single Judge was not justified  in giving  certain directions  in addition to punishing the  petitioners for contempt of court. We find no substance in  the submissions  made by  the learned counsel.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

There was  a clear  breach of  the undertaking  given by the petitioners and  we are of the opinion that the Single Judge was quite  right in  giving appropriate  directions to close the  breach.  The  Special  Leave  Petition  is,  therefore, dismissed N.V.K.     Petition dismissed. 601