Municipal Corp.Of Greater Mumbai vs Best Kamgar Karmachari & Ors
- SCC(2016) 15 SCC 682
- Neutral2016 INSC 127
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where parties to litigation have tendered unconditional apology for alleged contumacious conduct and have apparently settled their dispute, the court may decline to inquire further into whether contempt of court has been committed, particularly where a substantial period of time has elapsed since the alleged violation. Parties bound by orders of courts or tribunals are duty-bound to respect and comply with such orders in letter and spirit; failure to do so renders them liable to be answered to the charge of contempt of court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of judicature of Bombay in Contempt Petition Ldg. No. 41 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 901 of 2007, whereby the contempt petition was dismissed.
2. The respondents, however, explained their position before the High Court tendering also an unconditional apology. Having regard to the nature of the alleged violation of the order by indulging in illegal strike, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is difficult to render a finding regarding commission of contempt of Court by the respondents.
3. Now that the strike relates to the year 2007 and thereafter, the parties have apparantly purchased peace and since the respondents have tendered unconditional apology for their alleged contumacious conduct before the High Court, we do not think it necessary for this Court to make any further enquiry in that regard.
4. However, we may hasten to add that the respondents are bound to respect and comply with the orders passed by the Courts/Tribunals in letter and spirit, failing which, they should be answerable to the charge of contempt of court.
5. Subject to the above observations, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
February 03, 2016.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free