In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court tackled a case where the sanctity of a status quo order regarding the possession of a disputed property was intentionally disregarded. The apex court, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, ruled that such actions constitute civil contempt. Rather than merely lifting the stay on execution proceedings, the court asserted that contempt proceedings should be initiated.
The legal saga unfolded when a trust filed a lawsuit seeking, among other things, the recovery of possession against a registered society occupying the premises in question. The trial court ruled in favor of the trust, prompting the initiation of execution proceedings. The society, dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed to the Calcutta High Court. During the appeal, a Single Judge Bench issued a stay order on the execution proceedings, instructing the society to maintain the status quo on possession and refrain from creating third-party interests.
Despite these directives, the society breached the stay order by leasing out the premises, leading to contempt proceedings. The Division Bench noted an exhibition held in the premises after paying the society Rs. 6,000/- as rent.
Rather than initiating contempt proceedings, the bench opted to lift the stay on execution proceedings. Dissatisfied with this decision, the contemnor approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had no authority to vacate the stay order while exercising contempt jurisdiction.
In its observations, the Supreme Court cited various precedents, emphasizing that, besides punishing contemnors for disobeying orders, the court can also ensure they do not benefit from their disobedience. Referring to the case of Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC., (2017) 5 SCC 506, the court stressed the need for remedial or restitutive measures to rectify violations of court orders.
The court determined that vacating the stay order under contempt jurisdiction did not serve remedial or restitutive purposes. It asserted that the violation of the status quo order amounted to ‘civil contempt’ under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and criticized the High Court for exceeding its contempt jurisdiction.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court, urging it to continue the contempt proceedings it had initially refrained from undertaking. In light of these circumstances, the court allowed the appeal in the case of AMIT KUMAR DAS JOINT SECRETARY vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST (SOLE RESPONDENT)., Diary No.- 40480 – 2014.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
