A Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta held that the act of the contemnor therein was in willful disobedience to the stay order passed in the first appeal and was not only contemptuous but also illegal and invalid. The Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 25.02.2009 and directed delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust within 30 days. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac only) with the learned Registrar General of this Court by eight weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal.
However, we clarify that pendency of this appeal shall not prevent the plaintiffs-respondents-decree holders from initiating proceedings for recovery of mesne profit under Order XX, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned trial judge shall be at liberty to proceed with such proceedings in accordance with law. We, further, restrain the defendant no.1 appellant from creating any third party interest in relation to the property-in-suit including granting of any licence in favour of any third party during the pendency of this appeal. Roommee Bhattacharya had jointly held an exhibition from 13.05.2013 to 19.05.2013 on the ground floor of the suit premises after paying a sum of 6,000/- to the Society towards rent.
Further, the Division Bench noted that all the functions which were being held at the suit premises, in lieu of donations, were not organized by the Society itself, and such acts on its part amounted to willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 03.03.2010 passed in the first appeal.
As the 6 execution proceedings initiated by the Trust, the decree holder, stood stayed by virtue of the order dated 03.03.2010, the Division Bench opined that justice would be subserved by vacating the said order of stay of execution proceedings without initiating a proceeding for contempt. It would also point out that the Society was required to 7 deposit occupation charges @ 35,000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal and assert that the Society stopped making such deposits since February, 2020.
The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged.
The Bench further held that the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court order and in that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.
Therefore, the principle that stands crystallized by these judgments is that, in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/quashing-of-criminal-complaint-in-commercial-dispute/
Violation of the status quo condition in the stay order stood complete, even as per the High Court, and vacating of the stay order did not have the effect of restoring the parties to their original position or deny the contemnor the benefit of the disobedience which already stood concluded. However, as the High Court desisted from exercising contempt jurisdiction, owing to this misconceived measure, despite finding the contemnor guilty of willfully violating the status quo condition in the stay order, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court for continuing with that exercise as we have now set aside the course of action adopted by the High Court in the alternative. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR DAS JOINT SECRETARY Vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST (SOLE RESPONDENT) (2024 INSC 73)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001405-001406 / 2024
