Limitation in contempt proceedings bars late notice, while breach of injunction may still attract only a warning in disputed possession matters.

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bars contempt proceedings, including issuance of notice on an application, after one year from the alleged contempt; the notice against the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar was therefore impermissible. Where an interim injunction is wilfully disobeyed, civil contempt may still be found even if the breach occurs amid a disputed tenancy and a bona fide claim to possession; M.L. Sharma and the police officers were found liable, but the court limited the consequence to a warning. The injunction and restoration issues were remitted for fresh decision, with existing possession protected until final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notice could be issued against the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar after expiry of the limitation period under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; (ii) whether M.L. Sharma and the police officers had wilfully disobeyed the interim injunction so as to attract civil contempt and, if so, what punishment was ; and (iii) whether the orders concerning injunction and restoration of possession should be set aside and remanded for fresh decision, with interim protection of possession pending final adjudication.

Issue (i): whether notice could be issued against the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar after expiry of the limitation period under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

Analysis: Section 20 bars initiation of contempt proceedings after one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The court treated the bar as applying not only to suo motu action but also to issuance of notice on a contempt application. As the alleged contempt was already beyond one year, notice could not lawfully be issued.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellants, and no notice could be issued against the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar.

Issue (ii): whether M.L. Sharma and the police officers had wilfully disobeyed the interim injunction so as to attract civil contempt and, if so, what punishment was ;

Analysis: The court found that the applicants had been dispossessed after service of the injunction and that the conduct of the police party and M.L. Sharma resulted in disregard of the court's order. At the same time, the surrounding circumstances, including the disputed nature of the tenancy, the recitals in the sale deed, and the apparent bona fides of the belief that the premises were available to the bank's agent, made the matter less grave than an ordinary deliberate breach. The court therefore upheld the finding of civil contempt but declined to inflict substantive punishment beyond a warning.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against M.L. Sharma and the police officers on liability for civil contempt, but in their favour on the question of punishment, since only a warning was imposed.

Issue (iii): whether the orders concerning injunction and restoration of possession should be set aside and remanded for fresh decision, with interim protection of possession pending final adjudication.

Analysis: The court considered that the evidence on tenancy and prior possession was incomplete and that no party should gain advantage from an improper act. It therefore held that the injunction application and the restoration application should be reconsidered afresh, while maintaining the existing possession until final disposal by the court below or the competent authority, and directing expeditious decision of the release application.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellants to the extent of remand and interim protection, and the connected writ relief was only partly granted.

Final Conclusion: The contempt appeal concerning the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar failed for limitation, the findings of civil contempt against M.L. Sharma and the police officers were retained but punished only by warning, and the possession-related orders were set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication with interim status quo protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bars issuance of contempt notice after one year from the alleged contempt, and where a breach of injunction occurs amid a bona fide and disputed claim to possession, the court may uphold contempt but moderate the consequence to a warning while remitting related possession issues for fresh determination.

---