Considering all these facts, circumstances and the relevant provisions of law and the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the Subordinate Courts have no jurisdiction to proceed against a person under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if the Contempt is not an ex-facie Contempt and on the other hand, it is a "Contempt of Court" as defined under Section 2(a)(b)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If any such application for Contempt is moved complaining that a person has committed the Contempt of Court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Subordinate Court has to only refer the matter to the High Court for further proceeding in the said matter as contemplated under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Madras High Court
Though the miscellaneous petition is listed for disposal, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014 in M.P.No.23 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2013, pending on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai, mainly on the ground that the learned Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to entertain and consequently to initiate Contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. The revision petitioner herein is the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.59 of 2013 pending on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai and the respondents herein are the tenants. The said R.C.O.P. was filed by the tenants under Section 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended) seeking for restoration of basic amenity of water supply to the petition mentioned premises.
4. Pending the above R.C.O.P., the tenants filed an interim application in M.P.No.23 of 2014 under Section 17(3) of the said Act, seeking for a direction to the landlord to restore the water supply forthwith to the petition mentioned premises. The said interim application, after contest, was allowed on 25.2.2014. Alleging that the said interim direction was not complied with, the tenants filed Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying for punishing the landlord for disobedience of the interim order, dated 25.2.2014. The learned Rent Controller entertained the Contempt Petition and issued notice to the landlord. On receipt of the notice in the said Contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlord, challenging the same on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord submitted that the learned Rent Controller is not a Court to initiate the Contempt proceedings and therefore, he lacks jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants, though conceded to the question of law raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by saying that the Contempt proceedings may not lie before the learned Rent Controller, however submitted that the other remedy is always available to the respondents/tenants to execute the interim order, when the said order is not obeyed by the revision petitioner/landlord.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The core issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the Subordinate Courts, more particularly in this case, the learned Rent Controller, has jurisdiction to entertain the Contempt Petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
9. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants conceded to the above issue in favour of the revision petitioner/landlord. Even then, this Court would like to go into such issue and give a finding, since the question of law pertaining to jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be answered simply based on the concession given by the other side, since it is well settled that parties cannot either confer or deny jurisdiction on a particular Court in respect of a particular matter, unless it is so stated under the statute.
10. Thus, to decide the issue on hand, let me first consider the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said Act was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain Courts in punishing Contempts of Courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. A perusal of the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the said law would show that the then existing law relating to Contempt of Courts was somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory and that the jurisdiction to punish for Contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizen, namely the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression.
11. Though the term "Contempt of Court" is defined under Section 2(a) of the said Act, meaning Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt, the word "Court" has not been defined therein. However, the term "High Court" has been defined under Section 2(d) of the said Act to mean the High Court for a State or a Union Territory and includes the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory. "Civil Contempt" is defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act, to mean wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. "Criminal Contempt" is defined under Section 2(c) of the said Act, to mean the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
12. Section 10 of the said Act deals with the power of High Court to punish Contempts of Subordinate Courts, which reads as follows:
"Section 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts--Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself.
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
13. Section 11 of the said Act deals with the power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. Section 12 deals with the punishment for Contempt of Court, which reads as follows:
"Section 12: Punishment for contempt of Court--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation--An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any undertaking given to a Court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of Court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation--For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5)--
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."
14. Section 15 of the said Act deals with the cognizance of Criminal Contempt other than the Contempt referred to in Section 14 by the Supreme Court or the High Court, either on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General or in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer, as the Central Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, specify in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 specifically contemplates that in the case of any criminal Contempt of a Subordinate Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the Subordinate Court.
15. Section 19 of the said Act deals with the appeals from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for Contempt.
16. From a careful reading of the above relevant provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it could be seen that a "Civil Contempt" or "Criminal Contempt", as defined under Sections 2(b) and 2(c) respectively, is the Contempt of Court, which may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/- or with both, as contemplated under Section 12 of the said Act.
17. At this juncture, it is better to refer Section 11 of the said Act, which contemplates the power of High Court to try the offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction, which reads as follows:
"Section 11: Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction--A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any Court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits."
18. A careful perusal of Section 11 would show that only the High Court shall have the jurisdiction to inquire into or try a Contempt of any Court subordinate to it. Further perusal of Section 10 of the said Act, as quoted above, which deals with the power of High Court to punish Contempts of Subordinate Courts, would also show that only the High Court is the competent Court to exercise the jurisdiction to try a Contempt of any Court subordinate to it under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
19. Thus, it is seen from the above provisions of law that the High Court, apart from exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act in respect of the Contempt of itself, shall also exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of the Contempt of Court subordinate to it as well. Of course, proviso to Section 10 exempts taking cognizance of a Contempt alleged to have been committed, if such Contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
20. Further, a perusal of Section 12(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act would show that no Court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any Contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court Subordinate to it. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the words "no Court" referred to under sub-section (2) to Section 12, if read along with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, would only mean that it is only the High Court and not the Subordinate Courts.
21. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would undoubtedly make it clear that it is only the High Court which has the jurisdiction to entertain and punish in respect of an act that amounts to the Contempt of Court. This position is further made very clear under Section 19 of the said Act, which deals with the appeals under the said Act. Section 19(1) reads as follows:
"Section 19: Appeals--(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt--
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court."
22. From a perusal of the abovesaid provision of law, it could be seen that the decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for Contempt is appealable under Section 19(1) of the said Act in accordance with the procedure contemplated therein, either before a Division Bench or before the Honourable Supreme Court.
23. Further, Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court, a Court of Record, to have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for Contempt of itself. In fact, even before the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, such powers of the High Court to punish for Contempt of itself, has been conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:
"Article 215: High Courts to be Courts of record--Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."
24. Thus, it is seen that the power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India on the High Court to punish for Contempt of itself, after enacting the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been further widened under Section 10 of the said Act to exercise the same jurisdiction by the High Court in respect of the Contempt of Courts subordinate to it as well. Therefore, a combined reading of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, would make it abundantly clear that the High Court alone is the competent Court to try the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act in respect of the Contempt of Court subordinate to it.
25. Likewise, Article 129 of the Constitution of India empowers the Honourable Supreme Court of India to have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for Contempt of itself. Thus, the High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court being the Courts of Record as provided under Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution of India, respectively, shall have the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for Contempt of itself. A Court of Record carries with it the powers inherent to it, including the power to punish for Contempt of itself.
26. No doubt, the power to punish for Contempt has been conferred on the Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as contemplated under Section 17 of the said Act. Under the abovesaid provision of law, the power has been vested on the Tribunals to exercise the same jurisdiction, the powers and authority in respect of the Contempt of itself as a High Court and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall have effect, subject to the modifications stipulated therein.
27. Thus, it is evident that unless the power to punish for Contempt is specifically provided under a statute, such a power cannot be exercised by the other Courts subordinate to the High Court.
28. A Subordinate Court, is therefore, not authorised to deal with the Contempt of itself when it is committed outside the Court's purview. In other words, a Subordinate Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has no power to punish a person for Contempt, which is not ex-facie., i.e. when the Contempt is committed outside the Court. Under such circumstances, the Subordinate Courts cannot take action by itself and it can only report the matter to the High Court, which can deal with it as a Court of Record with the inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the cognizance of the Criminal Contempt is concerned, Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with the same, where it is contemplated that the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Insofar as the Criminal Contempt of a Subordinate Court is concerned, sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contemplates that the High Court may take action on a reference to it by the Subordinate Court, etc. Insofar as the Civil Contempt is concerned, though such procedure is not expressly contemplated under the CPC, namely for making a reference to the High Court or reporting to the High Court, once it is brought to the notice of the Subordinate Court that its order has been violated and the party who applies, seeks for punishment on the violator, the Subordinate Court can always exercise its inherent power conferred under Section 151 CPC by making such order of reference or the committal for the ends of justice.
29. At this juncture, it is useful to refer a decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in 1998 (Vol.42) MLJ (Crl) 217 (Suryaprakash Rao Vs. Presiding Officer, Family Court, Secunderabad), wherein, in paragraph 21, it has been observed as follows:
"21. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that the impugned notice issued to the petitioners is without jurisdiction because the Family Court cannot initiate proceedings for criminal contempt. It can only issue show cause notice under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 referred to above for the purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry for making an order of reference under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.15 of the Act. A Subordinate Court cannot be itself initiate contempt proceedings."
30. If the Contempt is ex-facie, the Subordinate Court can proceed straightaway. For example, if a person commits offences punishable under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 IPC, the same shall be dealt as Contempt as per the procedure contemplated under Sections 345 and 346 Cr.P.C., 1973, which reads as follows:
"Section 345: Procedure in certain cases of contempt: (1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.
(2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.
(3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceedings in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult."
"Section 346 :Procedure where Court considers that case should not be dealt with under section 345: (1) If the Court in any case considers that a person accused of any of the offences referred to in section 345 and committed in its view or presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him, or such Court is for any other reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under section 345, such Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as hereinbefore provided, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such person before such Magistrate, or if sufficient security is not given shall forward such person in custody to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom any case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to deal with, as far as may be, as if it were instituted on a police report."
31. Thus, it has to be seen as to whether an act of a person which amounts to Contempt, is ex-facie or "Contempt of Court" as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If it is an ex-facie Contempt as discussed supra and falls within the meaning and ambit of those offences referred to under the IPC, for which the procedure is contemplated under Sections 345 and 346 Cr.P.C., then the Subordinate Courts can proceed on their own accordingly. On the other hand, if the act of Contempt is a "Contempt of Court" as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or it is a constructive Contempt, the Subordinate Courts have no jurisdiction to exercise the power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, except to refer the matter to the High Court as discussed supra. At the same time, it is needless to say that a person who disobeys the order of the Court, cannot be left to go scot-free without either punishing him or getting the order duly obeyed or executed. If the party in whose favour an order or decree is passed and the same is alleged to have been violated or not complied with, it is open to such party to resort to the procedure contemplated under the CPC for execution of such order or decree as provided under various Rules contemplated under Order 21 CPC. Equally, he is also entitled to move an application before the High Court seeking punishment for such disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act.
32. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) SCC 360 (Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya), wherein, in paragraphs 12 and 14, it has been observed as follows:
"12. .... ... The respondents having committed breach of the undertaking given to this Court in the consent terms filed on 28.7.1999, they are clearly liable for having committed contempt of court. The fact that the petitioner can execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed by the respondents. ... ..."
"14. ... ... The violation or breach of the undertaking which became part of the decree of the court certainly amounts to contempt of court, irrespective of the fact that it is open to the decree-holder to execute the decree. Contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemner and is not affected in any manner by the rights or obligations of the parties to the litigation inter se."
33. However, when a procedure to execute such order or decree is made available under a statute, resort to an attempt to file an application under the Contempt of Courts Act should be avoided as far as possible.
34. Further, a careful perusal of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (as amended) would also show that it nowhere empowers the authorities constituted under the said Act to deal with the matters in relation to the abovesaid enactment to exercise the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
35. In fact, the word "Controller" as defined under Section 2(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, means, any person appointed by the Government to exercise the powers of a Controller under the said Act for such area as may be notified. It is clear that "Controller" is "persona designata" and not a Court. Similarly, a perusal of Section 23 of the said Act dealing with the appeal as against the order passed by the "Controller", would show that such appellate authority is again conferred with the powers only by Notification of the Government to be exercised in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. Only when a Revision is filed under Section 25 of the said Act, against the order of the appellate authority, the matter comes to the High Court.
36. Considering all these statutory positions, I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller in this case has exceeded the jurisdiction by entertaining the Contempt Petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. At the most, if the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that a party has committed Contempt of his/her order, the Rent Controller could draw a proceedings and refer the same to the High Court for invoking its power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 446 ( All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. M.P.Chinnadurai), wherein, in paragraph 14, it has been observed as follows:
"14. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would highlight that if at all, there is any pre-existing litigation before the Munsif Court concerned and if any one of the parties committed contempt relating to such matter, then, in such a case, Munsif Court can rightly draw a proceeding of it and refer it to the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act for invoking its power. Under no circumstances under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), the Munsif Court could directly send any reference to the Honourable Apex Court."
37. No doubt, an allegation is made in this case against the revision petitioner/landlord that he has violated the interim order passed by the learned Rent Controller, directing him to restore the water supply. If an order passed by the Rent Controller under Sections 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is violated, such order can be executed like an order of the Civil Court, which is specifically provided under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which reads as follows:
"Section 18: Execution of orders--(1) Every order made under Sections 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal under Section 23 or on revision under Section 25 shall be executed by the Controller, as if such order is an order of a Civil Court and for this purpose the Controller shall have all the powers of a Civil Court.
(2) An order passed in execution under sub-section (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision."
38. Therefore, the tenants in this case, are not remediless and they can always execute the order of the Rent Controller, though passed as an interim measure. Instead of doing so, the respondents/tenants have chosen to initiate Contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, before the learned Rent Controller, which in my considered view, is not at all maintainable and the same is without jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the learned Rent Controller has entertained the Contempt Petition and issued notice to the revision petitioner/landlord, without having jurisdiction to do so.
39. Considering all these facts, circumstances and the relevant provisions of law and the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the Subordinate Courts have no jurisdiction to proceed against a person under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if the Contempt is not an ex-facie Contempt and on the other hand, it is a "Contempt of Court" as defined under Section 2(a)(b)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If any such application for Contempt is moved complaining that a person has committed the Contempt of Court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Subordinate Court has to only refer the matter to the High Court for further proceeding in the said matter as contemplated under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
40. For the reasons stated above, the impugned Contempt proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller - X Small Causes Court, Chennai in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.8.2014 passed in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014 in M.P.No.23 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2013 on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Chennai, is quashed.
41. The quashing of the above Contempt proceedings will not preclude the respondents-tenants from taking steps for execution of the order dated 25.2.2014 made in M.P.No.23 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2013 on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended) or by filing a Contempt Petition before this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since the remedy available to execute the order through the Execution Proceedings is not a bar to initiate the Contempt proceedings before this Court in appropriate cases.
42. With the above observations and liberty, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment