Downloaded

Cont.P.No.
2048 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.2048 of 2022
S.Nagaraja
Assistant Professor of English,
Kongunandu Arts and Science College,
Coimbatore – 641 029. .. Petitioner
Vs.
Dr.Poornachandram
Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed Under Section 11 of Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the
order dated 11.12.2019 in W.P.No.34423 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Priyadharshni
For Respondent : Mr.D.Ravichander

Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 25
Cont.P.No.2048 of 2022
ORDER
The contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for
wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.12.2019 in W.P.No.34423 of
2019.
2. This Court passed an order, directing the first respondent to
consider the representation and dispose of the appeal filed by the
petitioner. Though the order copy was made ready on 11.02.2020, the
present contempt petition was filed on 2nd February 2022, beyond the
period of one year and therefore, the contempt petition filed is in
violation of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
3. This Court has decided the maintainability of the contempt
petition filed beyond the period of one year without any valid reason.
Under these circumstances, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected
on the ground of limitation and this Court passed an order in Contempt
Petition No.2539 of 2014 dated 05.12.2017 and the relevant paragraphs
are extracted hereunder:
“5. Thus, this Court has to examine the

maintainability of the contempt application in relation to
the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of
Page 2 of 25
Courts Act, 1971. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971 provides limitation for actions for contempt “ No
Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on
its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of
one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to
have been committed.”
6. Thus, it is clear that a limitation is prescribed

for filing a contempt application against an order passed by
the Court and one year period is prescribed from the date of
cause of action arose. In the case on hand, the cause of
action arose in August 2009 and the contempt application
was filed on 15.07.2014. Thus, there is a delay of about 5
years even in filing the present contempt application.
7. Next question to be considered in this regard is

that, whether this Court can invoke Article 215 of
Constitution of India for entertaining the contempt
application beyond the period of one year.
8. Article 215 of the Constitution of India

provides that 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.”
Page 3 of 25
9. Thus, the Constitution provides powers to the

High Court to punish for contempt itself. No doubt, such a
power is granted for the effective implementations of the
orders of the Hon'ble High Court. However, this Court has
to consider, whether such a power can be exercised beyond
the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, and under what
circumstances.
10. The general principle of law in this regard is

that whenever there is a Special Act enacted in respect of
limitation, the powers conferred under the Constitution as
well as the Special Act to be read cogently and
harmoniously. Harmonious reading of these provisions, no
doubt, the High Courts are empowered to exercise the
power of contempt as the High Court is the Court of record.
However, such power can be exercised only with reference
to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. This will not
mean that, the High Courts cannot exercise the powers of
contempt beyond the limitation period of one year. The
powers of contempt beyond the limitation period can be
exercised only on exceptional circumstances, and sparingly.
The powers conferred under the Constitution in normal
circumstances are to be exercised only with reference to the
Special Act viz., the Contempt of Courts Act. Only in
extraordinary circumstances; the High Courts can go
Page 4 of 25
beyond the period of one year and exercise the powers of

Contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
The practice prevailing now is that, irrespective of the
period limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, the contempt applications are filed
in a routine manner by stating that no limitation is
applicable in respect of the contempt applications filed
before the High Courts. Such a concept is not in accordance
with the legal principles settled in this regard.
11. With regard to Contempt of Court, In Morris

v. Crown Office, [ (1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081 LORD
DENNING wrote that
“Of all the places where law and order must be

maintained, it is here in these Courts. The Courts of Justice
must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at
it, strike at the very foundations of our society.”
“To maintain Law and Order, the Judges have,
and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend
against it”
“ It is a great power – a power instantly to
imprison a person without trial – but it is a necessary
power”
12. In the case of Balogh v. St. Albans Crown
Page 5 of 25
Court, [(1975) 1 Q.B. 73 (C.A) ], a person named Balogh

planned to put a cylinder of a substance called 'laughing
gas' as the inlet to the ventilating system and release the gas
into the Court, but was caught. In the Court of first
instance, Balogh grossly insulted a Judge after six months
of sentence was imposed. LORD DENNING observed that
' But I find nothing to tell us what is meant by “
committed in the face of the court”. It has never been
defined. Its meaning is, I think, to be ascertained from the
practice of the judges over the centuries. It was never
confined to conduct which a judge saw with his own eyes. It
covered all contempts for which a judge of his own motion
could punish a man on the spot. So “contempt in the face of
the court” is the same thing as “contempt which the court
can punish of its own motion”. It really means “contempt in
the cognizance of the court”.
He further reviewed a number of cases and gave
instances of contempt in the face of court, throwing a
missile at the judge, disrupting a trial, refusing to answer a
proper question, threatening the witness away from the
Court house after giving evidence, an employer threatening
an employee if he responded to a summons to attend court
for jury duty.
13. In the famous case of R v. Metropolitan

Police Commissioner [ ( 1968) 2 QB 150 : ( 1968) 2 ER
Page 6 of 25
319) ], a person Criticised the Court of Appeal in an Article

in a magazine. The criticism was in bad taste, wrong and
based on erroneous facts. LORD DENNING observed that
“ Let me say at once that we will never use this
jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That
must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to
suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear
criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far
more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech
itself. It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it,
in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment,
even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest.
Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done
in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and
our decision is erroneous whether they are subject to
appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise
us will remember that from the nature of our office, we
cannot reply to this criticism. We cannot enter into public
controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must
rely on our own conduct itself to be its own vindication.”
14. There are only two issues which are material,

one is the date of commission of alleged contempt and the
other is the actual initiation of proceedings for contempt. In
Golcha Advertising Agency v. The State of Maharashtra
[(1990) 2 Bom CR 262 (Bom) at pp. 263,265], the Court
Page 7 of 25
observed that no intervening event or order stops the

running of time specified in this section. Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 talks about the limitation
period within which the actions have to be taken. It
enumerates that the limitation period is a period of one year
from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed.
15. Article 215 of the Constitution of India

empowers every High Court to punish contempt of Court
subordinate to it, but Contempt of Courts Act lays down
how that power is to be exercised. Article 215 and
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read
together. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that
Section 20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and
would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of
High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate
Courts. Where there is a limitation for initiation of
proceedings of contempt under Section 20 of the Act, the
Rules of Code provide that no notice shall be issued if more
than one year has lapsed from the alleged act of contempt.
16. In the case of State of Kerala v.

P.K.Ramchandranan (Civil Appeal No. 2485 of 2005)
(Ker.). the Court observed that the Court has no power to
extend the period of limitation as it would otherwise defeat
Page 8 of 25
the provision of law. The natural corollary of this would be

that after the period, as prescribed by Section 20 of the Act,
lapses, the jurisdiction of the Court automatically
evaporates and Court loses jurisdiction under the said Act.
17. In the case of Ruksana Begum,Km v.

B.P.Varma, 1990 AII L.J.341, which is held that the
contempt proceedings having been initiated after a lapse of
more than one year from that date were held as barred
under Section 20 where suo motu contempt was registered
after nearly 4-1/2 years, after violation of undertaking
given to Court, held not maintainable even in the case of
O.P.Sreedhara Menon v. K.Amarnath Shetty, 2013
Cr.L.J.1684.
18. In the case of Dineshbhai A. Parekh v.

Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarvel
Ahmedabad, AIR 1980 Guj. 19 at p.199, the Court held
that the pendency of a contempt petition for more than one
year after the alleged act of contempt and no notice having
been issued even thereafter would not enable this Court to
continue to keep the petition pending indefinitely. The
jurisdiction of the Court is that the Court shall not initiate
any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or
otherwise, after the expiration of a period of one year from
the date on which contempt is alleged to have been
Page 9 of 25
committed.
19. The Supreme Court of India held in this

regard that the proper construction to be placed on Section
20 must be that the action initiated either by filing of an
application or by the Court issuing notice suo moto, within
a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed. No doubt, the High Court
is not powerless even when the period of one year is expired
from the date of alleged violation of Court's order, the
Courts can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India. However, such powers ought to be
exercised only on exceptional circumstances, more so to
mitigate the gross in justice if any occurred and the
inherent powers ought to be exercised sparingly and not in
a routine manner. The High Courts cannot make the
limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the
Contempt Courts Act illusory. The limitation prescribed
under Section 20 is to be scrupulously followed in all cases
and the provisions as to be read harmoniously along with
Article 215 of the Constitution of India. One step further
this Court has to emphasize that the Contempt of Courts Act
is a Special Act and the same will prevail in respect of filing
of the contempt application under the very same Act. The
general powers conferred under the Constitution has to be
read along with the provisions of the contempt of Courts
Page 10 of 25
Act. The Act is to be construed as the procedure for

initiating contempt contemplated, by virtue of the powers
conferred under the constitution.
20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect

the machinery of justice and the interests of the public in
order to protect these dual interests, unwarranted
interference with administration of justice must be
prevented. The power to punish for contempt is conferred
on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may be
armed with the power to enforce their orders, Secondly,
they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration
of justice. To ensure these objective, there are also
constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts,
apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court , the
records of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and
not to be questioned when produced before any Court. Such
a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its
inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court
is that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in
Constitution the contempt powers of Courts of record would
have been preserved. However the High Courts have to
exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt
of Courts Act.
Page 11 of 25
21. In the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and

Others [(2001) 7 SCC 549], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as follows:-
“Firstly, a contempt proceedings can be initiated
by two modes, either the Court can initiate the contempt
proceedings on its own (suo moto), or otherwise. The word
otherwise has been interpreted to mean that the initiation
would have to be done by a party by filing an application.
Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the
proper construction to be placed on Section 20 of the Act
must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an
application, or by a Court issuing notice suo moto within a
period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed.
Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find

that Section 20 of the Act either stultifies or abrogates the
power bestowed upon the Apex Court under Article 129 or
Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Thirdly, since Section 20 of the Act is a special

law prescribing a period of limitation, different from the
limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, which happens
to be the general law, the special law would naturally
override and take precedent over the Limitation Act- the
general law. Thus while exercising the power of contempt
Page 12 of 25
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India it has to be

exercised in consonance with Section 20 of the Act.
Fourthly, the word to initiate a proceeding would

mean the filing of a petition, The said word does not mean
the taking of cognizance by a Court, as was held in the case
of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K.Mittal [(2000) 3 SCC 171]”
22. Thus, obviously the power bestowed upon this

Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India would
have to be exercised, while keeping in mind the limitation
prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel with
regard to lack of applicability of the limitation upon a
power bestowed by Article 215 of the Constitution of India
is unacceptable.
23. In the case of [Hiralal Dixit v. State of U.P.,

AIR 1954 SC 743] it is held that power to be sparingly
exercised but where public interest demands it, the Court
will not shrink from exercising it.
24. In the case of [Subrata Kundu v. Kshiti

Goswami, AIR 2010 Cal 44] it is held that High Court has
jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to
initiate contempt proceedings but this has to be exercised in
Page 13 of 25
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The

Supreme Court in the said case by necessary implication
held that the said Act 1971 is the procedure prescribed by
law and the provision for limitation in the said Act has to be
made applicable.
25. In the case of A.Paul Pandi v. A.Karthik

[Contempt Petition No.3147 of 2014 Dated 21.11.2014]
this Court held that when there is a specific law enacted by
the legislature, namely the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
which contemplates a period of limitation under Section 20
of the Act, the said provisions should be read harmoniously
and proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971
should be initiated within a period of one year of alleged
contempt, as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act. In the said
case, the learned Judge of this Court lay down the said
principles based on the ratio lay down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Pallav Sheth v.
Custodian, cited Supra.
26. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

MAHESHWAR PERI v. HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD thro. Registrar General,
reported in 2016 (6) scale 425, dealt with the Contempt of
Courts Act 1971, His Lordship Justice Kurian Joseph J.,
while speaking for the Bench held as follows:
Page 14 of 25
“8.The main contention advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellants is that the High Court, having
initiated action only after four years of the alleged
contempt, the whole proceedings are barred by Section 20
of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (herein after referred to
as 'the Act') which has prescribed the period of limitation of
one year for initiating any proceedings of contempt, be it
suo motu or otherwise. Section 20 of the Act reads as
follows:
“20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No

court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on
its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of
one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to
have been committed.”
9. Learned counsel appearing for the High

Court , however contends that being an action initiated by
the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and since the genesis of the initiation of the contempt
is the application dated 18.11.2008 field by Mr.Manoj
Kumar Srivastava and Mr.Veer Singh, Advocates, and since
the High Court had considered the application within one
year and had taken action by issuing notice, though after
six years, it is within time.
Page 15 of 25
10. Our attention is invited to a three Judge

Bench decision of this Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian
and Others and particular to paragraph -39 and 40.
Paragraphs 39 and 40 reads as follows:
“39. In the case of criminal contempt of a

subordinate court , the High Court may take action on a
reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a
motion made by the Advocate -General or the Law Officer
of the Central Government in the case of a Union Territory.
This reference or motion can conceivably commence on an
application being field by a person whereupon the
subordinate court or the Advocate-General if it is so
satisfied may refer the matter to the High Court.
Proceedings for civil contempt normally commence with a
person aggrieved bringing to the notice of the Court the
wilful disobedience of any Judgement, decree, order etc.
which could amount to the commission of the offence. The
attention of the Court is drawn to such a contempt being
committed only by a person filing an application in that
behalf. In other words, unless a Court was to take a suo
motu action, the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 would normally commence with the filing of an
application drawing the attention of the Court to the
contempt having been committed,. When the judicial
Page 16 of 25
procedure requires an application being filed either before

the court or consent being sought by a person from the
Advocate -General or a law Officer, it must logically follow
that proceeding for contempt are initiated when the
applications are made.
40. In other words the beginning of the action

prescribed for taking cognizance of criminal contempt
under Section 15 would be initiating the proceedings for
contempt and the subsequent action taken thereon of refusal
or issuance of a notice or punishment thereafter are only
steps following or succeeding such initiation. Similarly, in
the case of a civil contempt, filing of an application
drawing the attention of the court is necessary for further
steps to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
11.We are afraid, the contentions advanced by the

learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be appreciated.
Be it an action initiated for contempt under Article 129 of
the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court or under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the High Court ,
it is now settled law that the prosecution procedure should
be in consonance with the Act, as held by this Court is
Pallav Sheth case (supra)
12.And thus, the dispute boils down to the
question of limitation only.
Page 17 of 25
13. Under the Act, the action for contempt is

taken by only two courts, either the Supreme Court or the
High Court. The procedure is prescribed under Section 15
of the Act, which reads as follows:
“15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other

cases.- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a
contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or
the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a
motion made by-
(a) the Advocate-General , or

(b) any other person, with the consent in
writing to (sic of ) the Advocate -General, or
(c) 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 this behalf, or any other person, with the consent
in writing of such Law Officer.
(2). In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate

Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made
to it by subordinate Court or on a mote made by the
Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by
such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by
Page 18 of 25
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3). Every motion or reference made under this section shall

specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged
to be guilty.
Explanation – In this section, the expression “Advocate

-General” means-
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-
General or the Solicitor General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate
-General of the State or any of the States for which the High
Court has been established;
(c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial
Commissioner, such law officer as the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this
behalf.”
14.Criminal Contempt of Court subordinate to High

Court can be initiated either suo motu or on a motion made
by the Advocate-General. The suo motu action is set in
motion on a Reference made to it by the subordinate court,
in Pallav Sheth case (supra) , it has been held that the
reference is the starting point of the process of initiation of
the action for contempt. That is why in paragraph-39, which
we have extracted above, it has been clearly held that...
Page 19 of 25
“unless a Court was to take suo motu action, the

proceeding under The Contempt of Courts Act,19671 would
normally commence with the filing of an application
drawing the attention of the court to the contempt having
been committed. “The application is the motion provided
under Section 15 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Such a motion, by any person other than Advocate-General,
can be made only with the consent in writing of the
Advocate-General. In other words, any other application
made by a person without the consent of the Advocate-
General, is not an application in the eyes of law'
15. This aspect has been succinctly discussed and
subtly distinguished in paragraph-44 of the Pallav Sheth
case (supra ).To quote paragraph -44:
“44. Action for contempt is divisible into two

categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and
that instituted otherwise than on the Court's own motion.
The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be
different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is
the court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the
other cases initiation can only be by a partly filing an
application, In our opinion, therefore, the proper
construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action
must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the
court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year
Page 20 of 25
form the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been

committed.”
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Prakash Kakubhai Rangwala Vs. Nyayalaya
Karmachari Anne Nayayadish Hitkari Sangh and
Another, reported in (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 762
held as follows :
7.These facts would, therefore, indicate and

establish that the decision of initiation of proceedings under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was taken on 3.12.2009
when notice was issued and, therefore, it is established
from the records that the aforesaid suo motu issuance of
notice for the offence of contempt on 3.12.2009 is within the
period of limitation of one year.
8. Even otherwise, we may appropriately refer to

the decision of this Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian
wherein this Court, after referring to a decision in Om
Prakash Jaiswal case held that : ( SCC p. 570, para 42)
“ 42. .... If the interpretation of Section 20 put in

Om Prakash Jaiswal case is correct, it would mean that
notwithstanding both the subordinate court and the High
Page 21 of 25
Court being prima facie satisfied that contempt has been

committed the High Court would become powerless to take
any action. On the other hand, if the filing of an application
before the subordinate court or the High Court, making of a
reference by a subordinate court on its own motion or the
filing of an application before an Advocate General for
permission to initiate contempt proceedings is regarded as
initiation by the court for the purpose of Section 20, then
such an interpretation would not impinge on or stultify the
power of the High Court to punish for contempt which
power, dehors the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is
enshrined in Article 215 of the Constitution.”
It was also held that such an interpretation of

Section 20 would harmonise that section with the powers of
the courts to punish for contempt which is recognised by the
Constitution.”
28. First of all, the facts of the above said case is

that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of
contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one
year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the
decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others
[ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The
ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation
Page 22 of 25
prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously

along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
29. The High Court's cannot invoke the powers under

Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in all the cases by
entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of
one year, so as to dilute or eradicate the law prescribed
under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. All
contempt applications ought to be filed within the period of
limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. The High Court on exceptional
circumstances, on arriving a conclusion that a gross
injustice to the society or the case is of public importance,
then the inherent powers provided under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, can be exercised without reference to
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A litigant may
come out with an interpretation that an injustice is caused
to all the orders or judgements passed by the High Courts.
Such a general proposition, as advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves no merit
consideration. No doubt, the litigants approach the Court to
get justice, that does not mean that all the contempt
applications have to be entertained after a period of one
year prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Generalisation in this regard can never be
encouraged. What exactly the circumstances warranting
Page 23 of 25
interference under Article 215 of the Constitution of India

has to be decided judiciously and applying the peculiar
facts and circumstances prevailing in each and every case.
General application in this regard is certainly
impermissible and Courts have to interpret these provisions
in a pragmatic way than in a general manner. In other
words, the principles of constructive interpretation is to be
adopted while interpreting the period of limitation under
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article
215 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is not
inclined to consider the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner by citing the above
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
4. In the present case, the contempt petition has been filed beyond
the period of limitation and thus, the principles settled in the judgment
cited supra would squarely applicable. Consequently, the contempt
petition stands dismissed. No costs.
30.09.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order: Yes
kak
Page 24 of 25
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
30.09.2022
Page 25 of 25

Downloaded

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cont.P.No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

Contempt Petition No.2048 of 2022

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed Under Section 11 of Contempt of

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Priyadharshni

For Respondent : Mr.D.Ravichander

wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.12.2019 in W.P.No.34423 of

2. This Court passed an order, directing the first respondent to

consider the representation and dispose of the appeal filed by the

period of one year and therefore, the contempt petition filed is in

violation of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. This Court has decided the maintainability of the contempt

Under these circumstances, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected

on the ground of limitation and this Court passed an order in Contempt

Petition No.2539 of 2014 dated 05.12.2017 and the relevant paragraphs

are extracted hereunder:

“5. Thus, this Court has to examine the

Courts Act, 1971. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

6. Thus, it is clear that a limitation is prescribed

7. Next question to be considered in this regard is

8. Article 215 of the Constitution of India

9. Thus, the Constitution provides powers to the

10. The general principle of law in this regard is

beyond the period of one year and exercise the powers of

11. With regard to Contempt of Court, In Morris

“Of all the places where law and order must be

12. In the case of Balogh v. St. Albans Crown

Court, [(1975) 1 Q.B. 73 (C.A) ], a person named Balogh

13. In the famous case of R v. Metropolitan

319) ], a person Criticised the Court of Appeal in an Article

14. There are only two issues which are material,

observed that no intervening event or order stops the

15. Article 215 of the Constitution of India

16. In the case of State of Kerala v.

the provision of law. The natural corollary of this would be

17. In the case of Ruksana Begum,Km v.

18. In the case of Dineshbhai A. Parekh v.

19. The Supreme Court of India held in this

Act. The Act is to be construed as the procedure for

20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect

21. In the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and

Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find

Thirdly, since Section 20 of the Act is a special

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India it has to be

Fourthly, the word to initiate a proceeding would

22. Thus, obviously the power bestowed upon this

23. In the case of [Hiralal Dixit v. State of U.P.,

24. In the case of [Subrata Kundu v. Kshiti

accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The

25. In the case of A.Paul Pandi v. A.Karthik

26. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

“8.The main contention advanced by the learned

“20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No

9. Learned counsel appearing for the High

10. Our attention is invited to a three Judge

“39. In the case of criminal contempt of a

procedure requires an application being filed either before