http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PURSHOTAM DAS GOYAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE B. S. DHILLON AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/03/1978

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1014            1978 SCR  (3) 510  1978 SCC  (2) 370  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1981 SC 723  (9)  F          1982 SC 691  (6)  D          1984 SC1826  (3)

ACT: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 19-20-What orders of  High Court  are appealable-Order initiating contempt  proceedings whether appealable.

HEADNOTE: The High Court passed an order directing issue of notice  to the  appellant to show cause why he should not be  proceeded against  for  committing contempt .of the High  Court.   The notice   was  issued  in  accordance  with   the   procedure prescribed  under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts  Act, 1971.  The appellant filed an appeal against the said  order under section 19(1) of the Act in this Court. The   counsel  for  the  respondent  raised  a   preliminary objection that no appeal under section 19(1) is maintainable against the order in question. Dismissing the appeal the Court, HELD : (1) An appeal lies to this Court as a matter of right from  any order or decision of a Bench of the High Court  if the order has been made in the exercise of its  jurisdiction to punish for contempt.  However, an appeal cannot lie  from any  kind of order made by the High Court in the  proceeding for contempt.  The proceeding is initiated under section  17 by  issuance  of a notice.  Thereafter, there  may  be  many interlocutory  orders passed in the said proceeding  by  the High   Court.   It  could  not  be  the  intention  of   the Legislature  to  provide for an appeal to this  Court  as  a matter  of right from each and every such order made by  the High Court.  The order or the decision must be such that. it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved.  Mere initiation of a proceeding does not decide any question. [511 F-H] 2.  if  the  alleged contemner in  response  to  the  notice appears  before  the  High Court and asks  it  to  drop  the proceedings on the ground of its being barred under  Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the  proceedings is  not barred, it may well be that an appeal would  lie  to this  Court  under  section 19 It is  neither  possible  nor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

advisable  to make an exhaustive list of the type of  orders which may be appealable under section 19. [512 B-C] Baradakanta  Mishra v. Orissa, High Court, A.I.R. 1976  S.C. 1206, relied on. Baradakanta  Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra  [1975]  1 S.C.R. 524, 53132, distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 568  of 1976. (From the Order dt. 2-4-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High, Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Original No. 15/Crl.11975). Mohan Behari Lal for the Appellant. Hardev Singh, Sunada Bhandare and Mohini for the Respondents Nos. 1-2. 511 S.  M. Kacker, Sol.  Genl. & R. N. Sachthey  for  Respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA,  J.-This  is  an  appeal  filed  by  the   alleged contemner under s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter  called  the  Act), from the  order  dated  2nd April,  1975  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana directing the issue of notice to the appellant to show cause why  he should not be proceeded against for committing  con- tempt  of  the  High  Court.   The  Notice  was  issued   in accordance with the procedure prescribed under s. 17 of  the Act, to show cause against the appellant’s alleged liability to be punished under s. 15. A preliminary objection was raised by the, Learned Solicitor General,,  on behalf of the respondents that no appeal  lies to  this Court under s. 19 of the Act from an order  issuing notice  as nothing yet has been decided by the  High  Court. Mr.  Mohan  Behari Lai, learned counsel  for  the  appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie to this Court as a matter of right under s. 19. In  our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on  behalf of the, respondents is well-founded and must be accepted  as correct.  S. 19(1) says .lm15 An  appeal shall lie as of right from any order or  decision of  the  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 or decision is that of a Bench, to  the 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." It would appear from a plain reading of the section that  an appeal shall lie to this Court as a matter of right from any order or decision of a bench of the High Court if the  order has been made in the exercise of its jurisdiction to  punish for  contempt.  No appeal can lie as a matter of right  from any  kind of order made by the High Court in the  proceeding for  contempt:  The proceeding is initiated under s.  17  by issuance  of  a  notice.   Thereafter,  there  may  be  many interlocutory  orders passed in the said proceeding  by  the High   Court.   It  could  not  be  the  intention  of   the legislature  to  provide for an appeal to this  Court  as  a matter  of right from each and every such order made by  the High Court.  The  order or the decision must be such that it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved.  Mere initiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance, of the  notice on  the  prima  facie view that the case is a  fit  one  for drawing  up  the proceeding, does not decide  any  question. This Court, 512 for  the  first time, cannot be asked in such an  appeal  to decide  whether the; person proceeded against has  committed contempt  of  the High Court or not.  The matter has  to  be decided either finally or, may be. even at an earlier  stage an  order is made, which does decide a contention raised  by the  alleged contemner asking the, High Court to  drop  the, proceeding.  It is neither possible, nor advisable, to  make an  exhaustive  list  of the: typo of orders  which  may  be appealable to this Court under S. 19. A final order, surely, will  be appealable.  Our attention was drawn by  Mr.  Mohan Behari Lai, to S. 20 of the Act which provides               "No  Court shall initiate any proceedings  for               contempt,   either  on  its  own   motion   or               otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one               year  from the date on which the  contempt  is               alleged to have been committed." He  submitted that initiation of the proceeding by the  High Court will be, without jurisdiction if it is in violation of S. 20.  It may be so.  If the alleged contemner in  response to  the notice appears before the High Court and asks it  to drop the proceeding on the. ground of its being barred under s.  20  of  the  Act but the  High  Court  holds  that  the, proceeding is  not  barred,  it may well be that  an  appeal would lie to this Court under S.   19  from  such  an  order although the proceeding has remained pending in   the   High Court.  We are not called upon to express our final opinion in   regard  to  such an order, but we merely  mention  this type of order by way of an example to show that even  orders made  at some intermittent stage in the proceeding  may  be, appealable  under  S. 19.  In our  considered  judgment,  an order  merely  initiating the  proceeding  without  anything further,  does  not  decide  anything  against  the  alleged contemner  and  cannot be appealed against as  a  matter  of right  tinder  S. 19. in a given case special leave  may  be granted  under  Art. 136 of the Constitution from  an  order initiating the proceeding.  But that is entirely a different matter.   What  we are deciding in, this case  is  that  the present appeal filed under S. 19 (1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent. We find some support to, the view expressed by us above from the  decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v.  Orissa High Court,(1) where it has been held that no appeal lies to this  Court under s. 19 of the Act from an  order  rejecting the prayer of the alleged contemner for bearing the case piecemeal. Mr. Lai placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra  (2).  What has been decided therein is this : that on a reference  made by  the  Advocate  General if the  Court  declines  to  take cognisance  and  to initiate proceeding  for  contempt,  the order  is  not  an  order  initiating  contempt  proceeding. Surely, it is not appealable under S. 19.  But there are  no observations  by  this Court nor on the facts of  that  case there can be any,. to show that an appeal would lie to, this Court from an order of the High Court merely initiating  the proceeding by issuance of a notice.  We, may repeat that  it may be, a different matter if the order does decide (1)  A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1206.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

(2)  [1975] 1 S.C.R. 524 (at pp. 531-32). 513 some disputes raised before it by the contemner asking it to drop the proceeding on one ground or the other.  But  unless and until there is some order or decision of the High  Court adjudicating  upon  any  matter  raised  before  it  by  the parties,  affecting their right, the mere order issuing  the notice is not appealable. The   appeal   is,  therefore,  dismissed   as   being   not maintainable. P H. P.                    Appeal dismissed. 514