Contempt jurisdiction ceases where the order alleged to have been disobeyed is modified in appeal—such petitions become infructuous and must be disposed of accordingly. This decision reaffirms settled legal principle, serving as binding authority within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction for similar scenarios.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COCP/2796/2019 of SURAJ PARKASH BAJAJ Vs ANKUR GUPTA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010971452019 |
| Date of Registration | 20-08-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Type of Law | Contempt / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a contempt petition survives after the foundational order is modified on appeal. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When the order, alleged to have been disobeyed and forming the basis of a contempt petition, is subsequently modified by an appellate court, the contempt petition becomes infructuous. The contempt is purged, and the rule stands discharged. The Court need not proceed further in such scenarios. This doctrine maintains the hierarchy and finality of appellate orders, preventing fruitless continuation of contempt proceedings based on superseded directions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner alleged intentional disobedience of an order dated 29.04.2019 passed in a civil writ petition. During pendency, the respondents challenged the original order through an LPA, and the order was modified. The petitioner conceded that, in light of the modification, the contempt petition was rendered infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that contempt proceedings cannot continue once the main order is modified by an appellate court.
- Petitions for contempt become infructuous in such cases and should be formally disposed of.
- Advocates confronted with appellate modifications to foundational orders should address consequent contempt petitions as rendered infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the contempt petition was predicated on the alleged disobedience of an order dated 29.04.2019.
- During the pendency of the contempt petition, the operative order was challenged in LPA, and modified by a competent appellate court.
- The petitioner conceded that the subsequent modification rendered the contempt petition devoid of purpose.
- Accordingly, in light of settled principles relating to the foundation for contempt jurisdiction, the Court held that the contempt was purged and discharged the rule, closing all related applications.
- This approach upholds principles of judicial hierarchy and prevents maintenance of parallel contempt proceedings where the original order no longer stands in its initial form.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Submitted that the respondents challenged the relevant order by filing an LPA.
- Informed the Court that the order was modified in appellate proceedings.
- Asserted that the contempt petition, therefore, became infructuous.
Factual Background
The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging intentional non-compliance with an order dated 29.04.2019 passed in a writ petition. During the pendency of the contempt case, the respondents filed an appeal (LPA), and the foundational order was modified. The petitioner acknowledged the impact of this modification, leading to the disposal of the contempt petition as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment concerned exercise of civil contempt jurisdiction by the High Court.
- The key issue rested on the status of contempt actions when the underlying order is modified on appeal.
- No express statutory section was interpreted or discussed beyond the application of general principles of contempt law.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the established position that contempt must abate when the foundational order is modified on appeal.
Citations
- CNR: PHHC010971452019