M/S Khurana Brothers vs Anand Bardhan Principal Secretary

2025 INSC 1240 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 27/2025 in C.A. No. 76/2023

M/S KHURANA BROTHERS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This contempt petition alleges willful

disobedience of this Court’s order dated

04.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 76/2023.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal that

Civil Appeal No.76 of 2023 was filed against an

order of a Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad passed in an intra

court appeal against an order of Single Judge

of the High Court. Though the intra court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2025.10.16 appeal was dismissed, certain observations were 11:34:06 IST Reason:

there which, according to the petitioner, made

petitioner’s position worse than what it was after the order of Single Judge. Therefore, the

same was challenged before this Court by

seeking leave to appeal. Though this Court

granted leave to appeal, the learned counsel

for the appellant instead of pressing the

appeal on merits made a statement that he may

be permitted to withdraw the intra court appeal

that was filed before the Division Bench of the

High Court so that his position as obtaining

under the order of the Single Judge of the High

Court is restored. This prayer was accepted by

this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023, and the

appeal was disposed of by observing that the

intra court appeal preferred before the

Division Bench of the High Court shall stand

withdrawn and parties shall work out their

respective rights in terms of the order of the

learned Single Judge of the High Court.

4. Now, this contempt petition is filed

alleging that the contemnor respondents have

not complied the order of the Single Judge of

the High Court as restored by this Court’s

order dated 04.01.2023.

5. On the last date, when this matter was taken

up, we had passed an order requesting the

counsel for the petitioner to address the Court

as to why this contempt petition be not

disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner

to initiate such proceedings, if required,

before the High Court as the order of which

violation is alleged is of the Single Judge of

the High Court consequent to the withdrawal of

the intra-court appeal.

6. In response to the last order, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that as the

order of this Court dated 4.1.2023 was passed

after grant of leave, the doctrine of merger

would apply and, therefore, the contempt would

lie before this Court.

7. The aforesaid submission may appear

attractive but in the facts of the present case

is not acceptable. Reason being the doctrine of

merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal

application and it cannot be said that wherever

there are two orders, one by inferior court or

tribunal and the other by superior court or tribunal, passed in an appeal or revision,

there is fusion or merger of two orders

irrespective of the subject matter of the

appellate or revisional order and the scope of

appeal or revision contemplated by the

particular statute. In State of Madras v.

Madurai Mills co. Ltd., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 140

(equivalent to AIR 1967 SC 681), a three-Judge

Bench of this Court held that application of

the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of

the appellate or revisional order in each case

and the scope of the statutory provisions

conferring the appellate or revisional

jurisdiction.

8. In the case on hand, this Court had allowed

the petitioner to withdraw the intra court

appeal in which the order under challenge in

appeal before this Court was passed. As a

result, once the appeal before the Division

Bench of the High Court stood withdrawn so did

all orders passed therein. Once that is the

position, by fiction of law the parties would

stand relegated to the stage at which they were on the date of filing of the intra court

appeal. In such circumstances, the order of the

learned Single Judge of the High Court would

operate from the date of this Court’s order as

if it had never been challenged.

9. In our view, therefore, contempt, if any,

would lie before the High Court. We,

accordingly, deem it appropriate to dispose of

this contempt petition by giving liberty to the

petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings

before the High Court if the order of the

Single Judge of the High Court has been

violated, as is alleged.

10. Contempt petition and all pending

application shall stand disposed of. It is

made clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the matter before us.

…………………………………………………………..….J [MANOJ MISRA]

…………………………………………………………..….J [UJJAL BHUYAN]

New Delhi October 14, 2025