N.C. Das vs M.A. Mohsin & Anr
- SCC(1997) 7 SCC 438
- Neutral1997 INSC 645
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 3805
- SCR[1997] Supp (4) SCR 25
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In contempt proceedings challenging a High Court order, an appellate court will not interfere with that order unless it is totally perverse. The contempt jurisdiction of courts must not be invoked or allowed to be invoked to enable a party to wreak personal vengeance against the alleged contemners.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R This is a special Leave petition against an Order of the High Court at Patna declining to take proceedings in contempt against the respondents. This is what the High Court said:
I Have heard Mr. P.K. Sinha and Mr. Jai Narayan, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, and also perused the show cause filed by the O.Ps. Although the conduct of the O.Ps. does not appear to be very fair but in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think if fit and proper to pass any further orders. Since the judgment and order has been complied with by the O.Ps., no further action in this regard is needed. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel, submitted that although the petitioner has been given promotion but all the consequential benefits have not been paid to him. It goes without saying that if the petitioner submits all the to necessary documents and papers there should not be any reason for the opposite parties not to pass necessary orders for payment of all consequential benefits. This contempt application is disposed of accordingly.
At the commencement of the hearing, we told learned counsel that in contempt proceedings such as these, an Appellate Court will not interfere unless the order is totally perverse. The Special Leave Petition has, nonetheless, been argued at length. We are in no doubt at all that there is no perversity in the Order that is challenged.
The contempt jurisdiction is not to be invoked or allowed to be invoked to enable the appellant to wreck personal vengeance against the alleged contemners.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
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