Read Time: 05 minutes
It was not permissible for the single judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the respondent has in fact committed contempt or not, Court said.
The Supreme Court has on April 23, 2025 said when one judge of a High Court has taken a particular view holding a man to be guilty of contempt, another judge could not have come to a finding that he was not guilty of contempt.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said it was not permissible for the single judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the respondent has in fact committed contempt or not.
"In our considered opinion, apart from this being in excess of the jurisdiction, it is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial propriety," the bench said.
The court allowed an appeal filed by Rajan Chadha and another and set aside a final order of July 3, 2024 passed by a single judge of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the contempt petition filed by the appellants.
"In our view, the order of the single judge of the High Court by holding that the respondent had not committed contempt amounts to sitting in an appeal over the order passed by the coordinate bench", the bench said.
The bench remitted the matter back to the single judge of the High Court for considering the issue from the stage of the passing of the order of December 5, 2023.
Brief Background
The present appeal was filed against the judgement and final order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Single Judge of the Delhi High Court whereby the contempt petition filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed.
A company named RBT Private Ltd. carried out business of dyeing, printing and trading of fabrics.
On 21.12.2019, a MoU was made and executed between the company, appellants, respondent, Sumit Gupta and one Shilpa Gupta.
The MoU was entered into for transfer of shareholding in the company and to re-organize the company’s management. In-effect, the Respondent was to purchase the entire shareholding of the Appellants and thereafter, the Respondent was responsible to run the affairs of the company.
Dispute arose when the appellants alleged that the respondents failed to discharge his obligation under the MoU and subsequently served legal notice upon them, followed by filing of Section 11 proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1996. When the award was passed and the respondents further failed to comply with the same, contempt petition was filed before on 13.01.2021.
Case Title: Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora
Please Login or Register
