DEBANGSU BASAK, J. :-

1. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents violated the orders dated June 17, 2004 passed in CC 113 of 2004 and in CC 114 of 2004. The petitioner has sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings as against the respondents.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the application for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings was valid on account of repeated interferences with the possession of the Joint Receivers by the respondents. He has pointed out that, civil contempt applications had been filed from time to time against the respondent No. 1 who continued to repeatedly sell the properties under the possession of the Joint Receivers. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present proceedings have notice and knowledge of such orders and despite the same continued to purchase the immovable properties.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that, contempt Rule was issued in several contempt applications including in CC 113 of 2004 and CC 114 of 2004. He has referred to a number of orders passed in contempt jurisdiction. He has pointed out that, the respondents have been held guilty of contempt by an order dated April 29, 2005 passed in CC 113 of 2004.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that, the petitioner applied for leave of the learned Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings by a letter dated March 23, 2012 in terms of Section 15(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The learned Advocate General however, did not deal with such application as he had appeared for the parties earlier. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present application praying for suo motu cognizance. He has pointed out that, by an order dated June 2, 2012, the Court had decided to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that, Joint Receivers were appointed by an order dated January 19, 2004. Orders of injunction had been passed on June 10, 2004 in CC 113 of 2004 and CC 114 of 2004. Subsequently, an order dated June 17, 2004 had been passed in such contempt proceedings. He has pointed out that, upon the failure of the respondents to appear despite the notice as recorded in the order dated June 17, 2004, Joint Receivers were appointed in respect of the subject properties. Pursuant to the order dated June 17, 2004, Joint Receivers have taken possession of the subject property on June 20, 2004. Joint Receivers have put up a signboard and caused notification to be published in newspapers. The same had been witnessed by advocates who affirmed affidavits to such effect. He has referred to the photographs showing signboards put up by the Joint Receivers. He has also referred the report of the Joint Receivers.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that, the respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition filed in CC 14 of 2005 admitted that the Joint Receivers have taken possession. Court had passed an order dated August 11, 2004 recording that the Joint Receivers have taken possession of the subject property. Court had passed orders dated February 8, 2005, May 11, 2005 and July 6, 2005 in CC 14 of 2005 having noted the attempts to disturb the possession of the Joint Receivers.

7. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the respondent executed a sale deed dated July 26, 2006. Consequently CC 198 of 2006 had been filed. In such contempt petition, an order dated December 22, 2006 had been passed which held that the sale deed dated July 26, 2006 had violated the possession of the Joint Receivers. An appeal preferred from such order was dismissed on March 23, 2007 which had recorded that the Joint Receivers were in possession.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the respondents were aware of the orders passed by the Court in the several contempt petitions as also the possession of the subject property by Joint Receivers. He has pointed out that, the respondent No. 1 was party to CC 113 of 2004, CC 14 of 2005, CC 23 of 2006 and CC 198 of 2006. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directors of the respondents No. 2 and were parties in CC 23 of 2006 and CC 198 of 2006.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, sale deeds executed despite the undertaking given to the Court on July 6, 2005 had been directed to be cancelled.

10. Relying upon 2000 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 512 (Bank of India vs. Vijay Transport and Others), learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, where properties are custodia legis interference with the same would tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice.

11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that, the sale deed dated January 27, 2012 is undervalued. He has compared the subject sale deed with the sale deed of a neighbouring plot executed on November 25, 2011 in this context.

12. Relying upon 2010 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 592 (Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and Another) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the power of the Court in respect of a criminal contempt.

13. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that, the defence sought to be set up should not be accepted. He has relied upon 1997 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 443 (Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Another vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others), 2016 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 44 (Anita International vs. Tungabadra Sugarworks Mazdoor Sangh and Others) and 2017 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 622 (Robust Hotels Private Limited and Others vs. EIH Limited and Others) and submitted that, order of Court is required to be obeyed irrespective of whether the same was passed within or without jurisdiction, till such time the same is set aside. He has pointed out that, no appeal has been preferred against the order dated June 17, 2004 passed allegedly without jurisdiction. In any event, the orders dated June 17, 2004 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction since the learned Judge had determination to take up matters for contempt of the order dated April 8, 1993 passed by a learned Judge who had retired. Moreover, the learned Judge has given reasons as to the circumstances in which he passed an identical order in CC 113 of 2004.

14. Relying upon 1994 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal 278 (Howrah Trading Company vs. Smt. Pramita Jalan & Ors.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that, interference with the possession of the Joint Receivers is violation of the possession of the Court and is an act of criminal contempt. The Joint Receivers, according to him had never been discharged. He has relied upon Howrah Trading Company (supra) and AIR 1962 Supreme Court 21 (Hiralal Patni vs. Loonkaran Sethiya and Others) in support of the proposition that a receiver continues in possession till an order for discharge is passed.

15. Relying upon 1996 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 622 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, a contemnor cannot be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his acts of contempt.

16. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that, the contempt petition does not specify the case in which the order dated June 17, 2004 was passed violation of which is complained of. He has contended that, the contempt petition is not maintainable since the cause of action does not exist. The order dated June 17, 2004 was not extended beyond August 10, 2007. The sale deed is dated December 27, 2012 and, the order dated June 17, 2004 was not in existence at that point of time.

17. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that, civil contempt proceedings were adjourned sine die in view of pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court.

18. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that, the subject property was settled by the mother of the respondent No. 1 on September 13, 2003. Such property was added in the terms of settlement dated December 30, 2003 without the knowledge and consent of the respondent No. 1 notwithstanding the fact that such property was not part of the plaint schedule of CS 781 of 1983.

19. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that CC 113 of 2004 was initiated for the sale in violation of the order dated March 15, 2004 and March 23, 2004 passed in the application to set aside the decree in GA 892 and 1039 of 2004. CC 114 of 2004 has been initiated for the alleged violation of the order of status quo passed on April 8, 1993. He has contended that, the respondent No. 1 was neither consulted nor did he signify his consent for inclusion of the subject property in the Terms of Settlement dated December 30, 2003. In any event, all matters including the inclusion of the subject property in the terms of settlement is pending before the Supreme Court.

20. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has contended that, the Court before which the contempt petitions being CC No. 113 and 114 of 2004 were instituted did not have jurisdiction to entertain such contempt petitions. In fact, according to him, CC No. 113 of 2004 had been released by the Court on June 8, 2005 in view of the observation made by the Division Bench. The next court had refused to pass any order in view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition.

21. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the present criminal contempt has been filed in view of the fact that the other 2 contempt petitions were adjourned sine die in view of the pendency of the main matter before the Supreme Court. He has contended that, the interim order of possession dated June 17, 2004 passed in CC 113 and 114 of 2004 were not extended beyond August 10, 2007. Consequently, the present contempt petition is not maintainable.

22. Moreover, all proceedings including the present contempt petition arises out of the consent decree dated January 19, 2004 passed in CS 781 of 1983 which is presently the subject matter of proceeding by way of civil appeal before the Supreme Court at the instance of the respondent No. 1 and has family members. He has contended that, there is an affidavit before the Supreme Court that the Terms of Settlement was obtained under threat of contempt and coercion by the joint receivers along with the plaintiff. He has contended that, joint receivers were appointed with the consent of all the parties including the respondent No. 1. However, at no point of time the parties who had a personal interest in conflict with that of the respondent No.1 and members of the family agreed to be appointed by the respondent No. 1 or members of his family.

23. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has contended that one of the joint receivers sold the property during the pendency of the interim order and therefore cannot hold the high moral ground in this contempt petition. The Terms of Settlement which forms the foundational basis of the contempt petition, was recorded behind the back of the respondent No. 1 and that, the same is pending before the Supreme Court. The conduct of the joint receivers should be considered on the anvil of the fact that the Terms of Settlement was stage managed and on the extent of the contempt proceedings being CC No. 264 of 2003 which was categorically stated in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.

24. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has referred to the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 particularly to sections 2 (b) and (c) thereof. He has contended that, criminal contempt cannot be initiated against his clients. He has relied upon 2021 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 745 (Prashant Bhushan and Another. In Re) in support of his contention.

25. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has contended that, strictest interpretation of the alleged act of contempt has to be given to initiate a proceeding under the Act of 1971. According to him, the acts of contempt that have been complained of, does not constitute criminal contempt. In support of his contention, he has relied upon 2014 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases 204 (Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and Others).

26. Relying upon 2009 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 641 (Parents Association of Students vs. M.A. Khan and Another) learned senior advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has contended that, since his clients were not parties to the original proceedings, his clients cannot be held guilty of contempt of court.

27. Relying upon All India Reporter 1962 SC 199 ( Hira Lal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath) and 2005 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 791 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another) learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has contended that, since the order violation of which is complained of was passed without jurisdiction, the same is a nullity and therefore cannot be enforced.

28. Petitioner has sought to invoke the criminal contempt jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 in the present proceeding. Petitioner has alleged that the subject property was part of a Terms of Settlement filed in a civil suit. In such civil suit, party joint receivers had been appointed by the order dated January 19, 2004. Such joint receivers had taken possession of the subject property on June 20, 2004. The respondents had despite orders of injunction continued selling the properties forming part of the Terms of Settlement and in possession of the Joint Receivers.

29. In this contempt petition, by an order dated June 2, 2012 the Court had called upon the respondents to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. In response thereto, the respondents have filed affidavits termed as representations.

30. Contempt Rule has not been issued by the Court as against any of the respondents in this proceeding. At this stage therefore, we should limit our findings to whether we should issue a Rule against any of the respondents given the facts and circumstances of the present case, or not.

31. Sale of the subject property by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 2 of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directors has been admitted in course of hearing. Subject property being under the possession of the Joint Receivers on the date of sale has been admitted by the respondents. Subject property being custodia legis on the date of sale has also been admitted. Justification for the sale and contentions that the respondents should not be punished for contempt have been raised.

32. In view of the fact that, contempt Rule has not been issued till date, we propose not to venture into the arena as to whether the justification for the sale and the contentions of the respondents that they should not be punished in contempt jurisdiction, at this stage. Such contentions may be decided, if raised, subsequent to the issuance of the Rule, if we decide to do so.

33. Vijay Transport and Others (supra) has held that, interference with properties which are custodia legis is interference with the administration of justice. That the joint receivers had taken possession of the subject property prior to the date of sale of the same by the respondent No. 1 is admitted. Sale therefore has interfered with the possession of the joint receivers over the subject property and the same tantamounts to interference with the administration of justice.

34. Orders passed by Court have to be observed till the same are set aside by a process known to law. This has been observed in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another (supra), Anita International (supra) and Robust Hotels Private Limited and others (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, possession of the subject property by the joint receivers has not been denied. Joint Receivers have not been discharged. Order appointing Joint Receivers has not been set aside. The other issues as to whether the violation was willful or deliberate may be decided subsequent to issuance of the Rule and opportunity being afforded to file affidavit.

35. In Re Prasant Bhushan (supra) Supreme Court has observed that, any act or omission of acts which tends to scandalize or lowers the authority of the Court, or where an act which prejudices or tends to interfere with the course of judicial proceeding or administration of justice in any other manner, then the courts are sufficiently empowered to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.

36. In the facts of the present case, petitioner has alleged repeated and willful violation of orders of court. Civil contempt proceedings have not acted as sufficient deterrent for the respondents to comply with subsisting orders of the Court. Despite orders being passed in civil contempt proceedings, the respondents have willfully and deliberately interfered with the possession of the joint receivers appointed by court.

37. Contempt proceedings and that too criminal contempt proceedings have to be exercised, if required, with utmost caution. Such jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly. Courts have to be satisfied that, exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 is necessary so as to uphold the majesty of the court and inspire confidence in the public.

38. In the facts of the present case, the allegations of violations are not limited to violations of orders passed by a civil court. The allegations of violations are that, the respondents despite orders of the Court passed in a civil suit as also in civil contempt proceedings, willfully and deliberately violated such orders.

39. We have postponed the decision as to whether any of the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated orders of the court or not to a later stage. We have confined ourselves to the enquiry as to whether a case for initiation of criminal contempt proceeding has been made out or not. In such limited aspect, the pleadings filed by the parties have established a requirement for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings as against the respondents.

40. In view of the discussions above, it would be appropriate to issue a criminal contempt Rule as against the respondents. Criminal contempt Rule therefore be issued as against the respondents. Such Rule is made returnable on August 20, 2024.

41. I agree.