Statutory contempt appeal exhausted and breach of undertaking upheld, with contempt punishment and remedial directions sustained.

A special leave petition under Article 136 was held not to provide a further appeal as of right after the statutory appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act had already been taken to and decided by a Division Bench, so the objection to maintainability failed. The Court also treated the undertaking as clearly breached, upheld the contempt finding and punishment, and accepted the Single Judge's authority to issue consequential directions to remedy and close the breach. The challenge to the contempt order therefore failed in its entirety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was maintainable after the statutory appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 had already been exhausted before the Division Bench; (ii) whether there was a breach of undertaking justifying the contempt finding, punishment, and consequential directions.

Issue (i): Whether a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was maintainable after the statutory appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 had already been exhausted before the Division Bench.

Analysis: Section 19(1) provides one appeal as of right from an order punishing for contempt made by a Single Judge to a Bench of not less than two Judges. Where that appeal has been availed of and decided by the Division Bench, the statutory appellate remedy is exhausted and no further appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court under that provision.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed; the petitioners had no further appeal as of right under Section 19(1).

Issue (ii): Whether there was a breach of undertaking justifying the contempt finding, punishment, and consequential directions.

Analysis: The undertaking was found to have been clearly breached. The contempt finding was upheld, and the Court held that the Single Judge was justified in giving appropriate directions to remedy and close the breach in addition to imposing punishment for contempt.

Conclusion: The breach of undertaking and the consequential contempt action were sustained against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the contempt order failed in its entirety, and the special leave petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contempt order of a Single Judge has already been carried in appeal to a Division Bench under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the statutory right of appeal is exhausted, and a proved breach of undertaking may be met with both punishment for contempt and directions to close the breach.

---