Abuse of process and criminal contempt arise where repeated applications are used to circumvent prior court orders.

A contempt petition was held not to be time-barred under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 so far as it challenged the application dated 14 December 1972, because the allegation covered a continuing course of conduct rather than an isolated earlier filing. The Court further held that repeated applications used to bypass prior orders, avoid compliance, and delay pending proceedings amounted to abuse of process and criminal contempt under section 2(c), as they interfered with the due course and administration of justice. The contempt finding was made against the respondents and a fine was imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; (ii) whether the filing of the application dated 14 December 1972 amounted to criminal contempt by abuse of the process of the court and obstruction of the due course of justice.

Issue (i): whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Analysis: The relevant allegation was not confined to an earlier application alone. The petition specifically referred to the application dated 14 December 1972 and asserted that the respondents' overall conduct was obstructing the due course and administration of justice. The limitation objection raised by the High Court proceeded on an unduly narrow reading of the petition and ignored the later act that formed part of the continuing course of conduct.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by limitation insofar as it concerned the application dated 14 December 1972.

Issue (ii): whether the filing of the application dated 14 December 1972 amounted to criminal contempt by abuse of the process of the court and obstruction of the due course of justice

Analysis: Criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 includes acts that interfere with or obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. A sustained course of filing applications designed to circumvent existing judicial orders and to defeat the progress of proceedings may constitute abuse of process and contempt. The respondents had repeatedly obtained orders from one court to neutralise earlier orders, had failed to comply with prior directions, and then sought a stay of the money suit despite an earlier order permitting it to proceed. The application of 14 December 1972 had to be viewed in the context of this continuing pattern.

Conclusion: The filing of the application dated 14 December 1972 constituted criminal contempt.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the contempt finding was made against the respondents, and punishment by fine was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A deliberate course of filing applications to circumvent prior judicial orders and obstruct pending proceedings amounts to abuse of process and, when it interferes with the due course of justice, constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

---