Contempt appeal maintainability under section 19(1) depends on a High Court order imposing punishment for contempt, not mere dismissal.

An appeal under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act lies only from a High Court order passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Where the High Court declines to invoke that punitive jurisdiction and dismisses a criminal contempt application without imposing punishment, the order is not appealable under that provision. The statutory right of appeal does not extend to a mere refusal to punish for contempt. The appeal was therefore not maintainable, the objection to maintainability succeeded, and the proceeding was dismissed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act lies against a High Court order dismissing an application for criminal contempt without imposing punishment.

Analysis: The appellate right under section 19(1) is confined to an order or decision passed by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Article 215 of the Constitution of India confers on every High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. Where the High Court declines to exercise that punitive jurisdiction and merely dismisses the contempt application, the order is not one imposing punishment and does not attract the statutory appeal provision.

Conclusion: The appeal under section 19(1) was not maintainable and the objection to maintainability succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was held to be incompetent at the threshold and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under section 19(1) lies only from an order of the High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and not from an order refusing to punish or dismissing the contempt application.

---