Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, a Registered Society vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust [January 30, 2024]
Background
The case revolved around the enforcement of a civil decree for possession and damages in favor of the Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust (“the Trust”) against Baitanik, a registered society (“the Society”), which was occupying premises at 4B, Elgin Road, Kolkata. The Trial Court, in 2009, ordered the Society to vacate the premises within 30 days. The Society appealed and secured a conditional stay order from the Calcutta High Court, requiring payment of occupation charges and a deposit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Trust alleged that the Society violated the stay order by letting out the premises for exhibitions, prompting contempt proceedings.
High Court Proceedings
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court found that the Society, through its Joint Secretary Amit Kumar Das, had willfully disobeyed the stay order. However, instead of proceeding with contempt sanctions, the High Court vacated the stay order, thereby enabling execution of the original decree in favor of the Trust.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court focused on the scope of contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It held that the High Court’s action—vacating a stay order as a response to contempt—was improper. The Court clarified that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to punish disobedience of court orders and maintain the authority of the judiciary, not to alter substantive rights or remedies between parties in the underlying litigation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that when a court finds willful disobedience of its orders, it must address the contempt by imposing appropriate penalties or remedial directions, not by indirectly granting substantive relief to the aggrieved party. The High Court’s approach, which allowed the Trust to execute the decree by vacating the stay, exceeded the permissible scope of contempt jurisdiction.
Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order to the extent it vacated the stay in the appeal as a consequence of contempt. The matter was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings in line with the proper exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that any measures taken in contempt must be restitutive or remedial, not punitive in a way that changes the parties’ substantive rights.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the contours of contempt jurisdiction, underscoring that courts must not use contempt proceedings as a substitute for adjudicating substantive disputes or a
RELATED Blog
0 comments