Hotel Seashell And Another v. Karuna Jaydhar

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Port Blair Appellate Side CPAN 15 of 2022 Hotel Seashell and Another Vs.

Mr. Karuna Jaydher, Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, Port Blair in MAT 4 of 2021 The Lieutenant Governor and others Vs.

Hotel Seashell & another DL-1 25.07.2025 Court No.26 (AD) Mrs. Anjili Nag, Advocate (Through VC) ... for the applicants Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi, Advocate Ms. Srijeeta Gupta, Advocate ... for the alleged contemnor .

1. Petitioner complains of violation of an order dated December 17, 2021 passed in MAT 4 of 2021 in IA No.: CAN 1 of 2021.

2. Alleged contemnor is represented.

3. The order dated December 17, 2021 affirms an order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Our attention is drawn to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152 (Sailesh Kumar vs. Smitha R., IAS and Another) and particularly to the relevant portion of paragraph 22 thereof which is as follows:

"22. The Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 was promulgated in exercise of power conferred under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India to regulate the

procedures of contempt of courts matter may be seen in this regard. The said Rules having a statutory backing have to be understood and applied and no departure can be presumed therefrom. Rule 15 of the Contempt Rules postulates that all petitions with regard to the civil contempt grounded on the wilful disobedience to the judgment, decree, the directions, order or other process of Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court shall be heard by the Judge or Judges who passed the judgment or a decree or gave the directions or the orders or issued the writ or other process or before whom the undertaking was given. The statutory provision has to be understood on the basis of the intention purposes and object it sought to achieve and segregation and/or compartmentalization has to be eschewed.

The provisions contained in Rule 15 cannot be dissected nor segregated in the event of an undertaking, the contempt would lie to the Judge before whom the undertaking is given from rest of the express eventualities provided therein. It is explicit from Rule 15 of the Contempt Rules that the contempt would lie before a Judge or Judges who passed the judgment or decree and not before the Appellate Court which confirms the decree.

Procedure. Any other interpretation to the provision contained under Rule 15 of the Contempt Rules would not only burden the Division Bench of the High Court with slew of the contempt applications but also have the ramification on docket explosion. Although the doctrine of merger is not a rigid rule but certainly depends upon the statutory provisions applicable in relation to the maintainability of the contempt application before a forum. The contempt jurisdiction is not only exercised to punish the person having found guilty of wilful and deliberate violation of the order/direction of the Court but can further be exercised in due implementation and/or execution of the said order. It stands to reason that the statutory provision contained in the Rules is strictly applicable and therefore, the answer to the references is as follows:

(i) In case of an affirmation of an order of Single Bench passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction either in Original Side or the Appellate Side, the contempt would lie before the Single Bench alleging the violation of the directions of orders passed by him.

(ii) In case of reversal, modification and setting aside the order of the Single Bench in an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Division Bench, the contempt application would lie before the Judges constituting a Division Bench who passed the order.

(iii) In the event, an undertaking is given by the party to the proceeding before the Single Judge to do or not to do a certain thing and challenge to an order could not yield in

reversal and/or modification of the original order is recorded the contempt would lie to a Judge before whom such undertaking was given."

5. Since the Division Bench order is one of affirmation of the learned Single Judge in view of Sailesh Kumar (supra), we permit the petitioner before us to move the appropriate Court.

6. CPAN 15 of 2022 in MAT 4 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Jay Sengupta, J.)