AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
On the issue of non-compliance of the direction of this Tribunal while granting interim protection given as a condition for stay of the operation of the impugned direction of the DRT, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this kind of non-compliance only entails vacation of the interim protection and nothing beyond that. In my view, as far as the consequence of withdrawal of interim protection is concerned, it goes without saying that it is one of the consequences which has to follow the non-compliance of the condition of stay. If a litigant starts saying after getting interim relief conditional upon his satisfying some conditions imposed by the Court/Tribunal that the only consequence for non-compliance of the condition of stay is withdrawal of the interim protection, then the sanctity of any direction passed by any Tribunal/Court would be in lost, which cannot be permitted to happen.
In this regard, I may refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, VII (2007) SLT 440 : III (2007) CLT 296 (SC) : (2007) 8 SCC 449, wherein under almost similar circumstances interim injunction was granted by the Court subject to compliance of certain condition of deposit by the borrower and that condition was not complied with. Similar stand, as is taken by the appellant in the present case, was taken that since in the order granting interim stay to the defaulting borrower it was mentioned that in the event of non-compliance of the condition of stay, the stay would stand vacated.
It was argued on behalf of the Bank that non-compliance of even the condition imposed on a litigant while granting some interim relief amounts to contempt of Court and further that the defaulting litigant also loses his right to be heard in the matter.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed observed as order:
"25. In the leading case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson the custody of a child was given to the mother by an interim order of the Court, but she was directed not to remove the child out of jurisdiction of the Court without the prior permission of the Court. In spite of the order, the mother removed the child to Australia without prior permission of the Court. On a summons by father, the Court directed the mother to return the child within the jurisdiction of the Court. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed by the mother against that order. A preliminary objection was raised by the father that as the appellant was in contempt, she was not entitled to be heard on merits. Upholding the contention and speaking for the majority, Romer, L.J. observed: (All ER p.572 C)
".... I am clearly of the opinion that the mother was not entitled, in view of her continuing contempt of Court, to prosecute the present appeal and that she will not be entitled to be heard in support of it until she has taken the first and essential step towards purging her contempt of returning the child within the jurisdiction."
In a concurring judgment, Denning, L.J. also stated: (All ER P. 5T5 C-D)
"The present case is a good example of a case where the disobedience of the party impedes the course of justice. So long as this boy remains in Australia, it is impossible for this Court to enforce its orders in respect of him. No good reason is shown why he should not be returned to this country so as to be within the jurisdiction of this Court.
He should be returned before Counsel is heard on the merits of this case, so that, whatever order is made, this Court will be able to enforce it. I am prepared to accept the view that in the first instance the mother acted in ignorance of the order, but nevertheless, once she came to know of it, she ought to have put the matter right by bringing the boy back. Until the boy is returned, we must decline to hear her appeal."
That, however, does not mean that in each and every case in which a party has violated an interim order has no right to be heard at all. Nor will the Court refuse to hear him in all circumstances. The normal rule is that an application by a party will not be entertained until he has purged himself of the contempt. There are, however, certain exceptions to this rule. One of such exceptions is that the party may appeal with a view to setting aside the order on which his alleged contempt is founded. A person against whom contempt is alleged must be heard in support of the submission that having regard to the meaning and intendment of the order which he is said to have disobeyed, his actions did not constitute a breach of it."
So, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also clarified that there could be exceptions and one of the exceptions could be where the litigant not complying with the direction appeals against the relevant order of the Court before a higher Forum. Here the appellant did not approach the High Court.
The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited one judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. Saravanakumar v. Sheela & Ors., Contempt Petition No. 478 of 2008 and Sub Application No. 111 of 2008 decided on 18.6.2008, and another judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-Pune in Sinhgad Technical Education Society v. Department of Income Tax, M.A. No. 175/PN/10 (Arising out of SA No. 30/PN/10 & ITA No. 320/PN/10), decided on 14.11.2011. However, these two decisions cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant has lost its right to be heard and, consequently, this appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the direction of this Tribunal.