Contempt appeal maintainability: no appeal lies from dismissal without punishment, and savings clauses cannot bypass specific contempt rules.

Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act permits an appeal only from an order imposing punishment for contempt; dismissal of a contempt petition without punishment does not create an appealable order. Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates as a savings clause and cannot be used where a specific contempt mechanism already exists under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013. Contempt proceedings against a juristic person alone are also untenable where the individual responsible for the alleged disobedience is not impleaded. The combined effect is that the statutory contempt framework cannot be bypassed by resort to the savings clause, and appellate review is confined to punishment orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal lay against the dismissal of a contempt petition; (ii) whether contempt jurisdiction could be invoked through the savings clause and against a juristic person without impleading the individual responsible for compliance.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against the dismissal of a contempt petition.

Analysis: The appeal was examined in the light of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the settled principle that the appellate remedy under Section 19 is available only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. The dismissal of a contempt petition, where no punishment is imposed, is not an order passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The cited precedent on contempt appeals was read as confirming that an applicant who informs the court of alleged disobedience does not acquire a substantive right to appeal against refusal to punish. The later three-judge decision was also relied upon to reaffirm that the appeal lies only from a punishment order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable against the dismissal of the contempt petition and the challenge failed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether contempt jurisdiction could be invoked through the savings clause and against a juristic person without impleading the individual responsible for compliance.

Analysis: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as a savings provision, available only where the statute does not otherwise provide a remedy or procedure. Where Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 specifically governs contempt before the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, the savings clause could not be expanded to override the statutory framework. The contempt allegation was also directed against a juristic person, while contempt punishment under the contempt law is directed at the individual responsible for the act of disobedience. In the absence of the responsible individual being proceeded against, the contempt petition was held to be untenable against the company alone.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 60(5) was impermissible in the presence of a specific contempt provision, and the contempt petition against the juristic person alone was untenable.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the contempt petition was sustained, and the appellate challenge was rejected for want of maintainability and merit.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lies only from an order imposing punishment for contempt, and a savings clause cannot be used to bypass a specific statutory mechanism governing contempt proceedings.

---