1980 (7) TMI 277 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition Dismissed: Failure to Prove Contempt Occurred Within One Year, Jurisdiction Barred by Contempt of Courts Act.

Dineshbhai A. Parikh Versus Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarvel, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Dineshbhai A. Parikh Versus Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarvel, Ahmedabad and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. Applicability of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.3. Condonation of delay in contempt proceedings.4. Nature and scope of contempt proceedings.5. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to contempt proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:The court examined whether it had jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, considering the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees was in force from 26-5-1978 to 5-5-1979, and the present petition was filed on 20-11-1979. The court noted that unless the respondents committed a willful breach of the injunction between 20-11-1978 and 5-5-1979, Section 20 would bar its jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to specify when the breach occurred, which was necessary to establish the court's jurisdiction.2. Applicability of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, places an absolute fetter on the power of the court to initiate proceedings for contempt after one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The court emphasized that this provision is a condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction. The court cannot initiate proceedings if the alleged contempt occurred more than one year before the initiation of the proceedings.3. Condonation of delay in contempt proceedings:The petitioner filed a civil application for condonation of delay. The court discussed whether it had jurisdiction to condone delay in contempt proceedings. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, was examined, which allows for the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act unless expressly excluded by a special or local law. The court concluded that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is a complete code and excludes the application of the Limitation Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, is not applicable to contempt proceedings.4. Nature and scope of contempt proceedings:The court highlighted that contempt proceedings are between the contemner and the court. A person bringing contempt to the court's notice is merely an informant and does not have the status of a petitioner or applicant. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not contemplate the institution of a petition or application by a private individual but rather the initiation of proceedings by the court on its own motion or otherwise.5. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to contempt proceedings:The court concluded that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Act is a complete code, and Section 20 prescribes a condition precedent to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, not a period of limitation in the traditional sense. Therefore, the court cannot condone delay in initiating contempt proceedings.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to show that the contempt was committed within one year of the court issuing the notice (23-11-1979). Since the condition precedent to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction was not satisfied, the court's jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was barred under Section 20. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.