HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

********

CONTEMPT CASE NO.246 OF 2024

Between :

Mohammed Nayeem, s/o. Mohd.Mahboob,

50 years, occu: Business, R/o.H.no.5-1-638,
Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
…Petitioner/
appellant in
CCCA No.253 of 2017
and

Smt. Naveditha Manvikar, w/o.Atul Manvikar,

Age 40 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.4-1-589/1/6,
Second Floor, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/
respondent in
CCCA No.253 of 2017

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.04.2024

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of local Newspapers : Yes

may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether his Lordship wish to : Yes

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
2

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

+ CONTEMPT CASE NO.246 OF 2024

%29.94.2024

Between:

# Mohammed Nayeem, s/o. Mohd.Mahboob,

50 years, occu: Business, R/o.H.no.5-1-638,
Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
…Petitioner/
appellant in
CCCA No.253 of 2017
and

$ Smt. Naveditha Manvikar, w/o.Atul Manvikar,

Age 40 years, occu: Household, r/o.H.No.4-1-589/1/6,
Second Floor, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/
respondent in
CCCA No.253 of 2017

!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B.Rajeshwar Rao

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

(1999) 7 SCC 569; MANU/DE/2920/2023; 2015 SCC Online Mad 14155

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CONTEMPT CASE NO.246 OF 2024

ORDER:

This contempt case has been filed alleging that order of the

Court dated 23.11.2017 in CCCA MP No.722 of 2017 in CCCA

No.253 of 2017 is violated by the respondent.

2. The operative portion of the order dated 23.11.2017 reads

as under:

“.. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner herein

filed I.A.No.232 of 2010 in O.S.no.31 of 2020 before the Court
below to direct the respondent herein not to alienate the suit
schedule property. There is an interim order in favour of the
petitioner during the pendency of the suit.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

the respondent is directed not to alienate the suit schedule
property pending disposal of the appeal.”

3. Heard Sri B.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar learned counsel for respondent.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in

violation of the directions of the Court, the respondent in trying

to alienate the subject property along with the neighbour’s shop

by showing the same to the third parties; that when the

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
4

petitioner resisted the illegal action of the respondent and also

brought to the notice of the respondent and her men that the

interim order dated 23.11.2017 is existing, the respondent did not

hear the contention of petitioner and threatened the petitioner

with dire consequences and warned that she will sell the subject

property to third parties, which amounts to violation of the

orders of the Court.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent and

entered into lease deed dated 01.03.2001 in respect of subject

premises; that subsequently, the petitioner, by creating forged

and fabricated agreement of sale, started illegally claiming the

subject premises and filed a suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2010 on the

file of X Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for

specific performance of Agreement of sale and the said suit was

dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2017. Aggrieved

by dismissal, the petitioner filed CCCA No.253 of 2017 before this

Court and this Court passed interim direction not to alienate the

suit schedule property.

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
5

6. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that on

account of interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is

trying to deal with the property with the neighbour shop owners

and was trying to induct them into possession of the subject

premises; on knowing the said fact, respondent issued legal

notice dated 11.01.2024 through her counsel stating that

petitioner has no right or authority to induct anybody in the

subject premises or create any third party interest over the subject

premises. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the

respondent never violated the orders of this Court; that mere

issuing of legal notice does not amount to violation of court

order.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted

that the petitioner, who claims breach of Court’s order must

allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court’s

order and there must be a clear violation of Court’s order in the

form of wilful disobedience even by negligence or carelessness;

that in the present case, there is no such wilful disobedience on

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
6

the part of the respondent and prayed to dismiss the contempt

case with exemplary costs.

8. In support of the contention, learned counsel for

respondent placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others vs. State of Bihar and

others 1; and

ii) Asha Gupta vs. Sandeep Gupta and others 2

9. Perusal of the averments in the affidavit and the material

placed on record, would show that this Court vide interim order

dated 23.11.2017 in CCCA MP No.722 of 2017 in CCCA No.253 of

2017, directed the respondent ‘not to alienate the suit schedule

property pending disposal of the suit.’

10. It is pertinent to note that the suit filed by the petitioner

was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.10.2017,

against which, the petitioner preferred appeal vide CCCA No.253

of 2017 and this Court granted above interim order.

11. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:

1
(1999) 7 SCC 569
2
MANU/DE/2920/2023
 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
7

“9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt,

civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been
willful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court.
Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there
is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of contempt
and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence,
these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of
wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out.
Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends
on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are
to be properly understood and complied with. Even
negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience
particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the
court's orders and its implications. Disobedience of the
court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on
which our system of governance is based. Power to punish
for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective
legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the
course of justice.

xxxx

11. No person can defy the court's order. Willful would

exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or
genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A
petitioner who complains breach of the court's order must
allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court's
order.”

12. In Asha Gupta (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,

while referring the decision in Kapildeo Prasad Sah (supra), held

that “a mere averment or a bald statement is not sufficient to initiate

contempt proceedings or issue a show-cause notice against a person. The

disobedience must be wilful and must be beyond a casual or

accidental/genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order.

Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience is not enough, an absence of

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
8

wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him

guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault of misconduct.”

13. In N.Ramadas Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,

Kancheepuram Range, Collector’s Office, Kancheepuram vs.

Dr. .A.Mohamed Abdul Huq and another 3, the Division Bench

of Hon’ble High Court of Madras held as under:

“9. Proceeding with a contempt is a business between the

Court and the contemnor. A person who initiates a contempt
proceeding cannot have a bigger role than that of an informer
with respect to a criminal contempt. When a person alleges
wilful disobedience of an order passed by another, the onus is
wholly on him to substantiate it. The proceedings are like in a
criminal case which is inclusive of the standard of proof
required. They are quasi criminal nature. The power of the
Court, which exercises its contempt jurisdiction, is a special
and rare one. Therefore, it has to be exercised with
circumspection caution and care. There has to be sufficient
evidence leading to a finding on the wilfulness relatable to the
contemnor. When there are two views possible on the alleged
action or inaction of the contemnor, then the benefit of doubt
will have to be extended to him. These are the underlining
principles governing contempt proceedings before a Court of
law. A mere surmise or conjuncture can never be a basis to
haul a person for contempt. An inadvertence mistake or
misunderstanding of an order of Court would not lead to
contempt.

10. While dealing with the contempt petitions, the Court is not
supposed to go into the various nitti-gritty of the steps taken
by the contemnor. The Courts are not required to travel
beyond the four corners of the order, which is alleged to have
been clotton deliberately and wilfully. In this connection, a
fruitful recapitulation of a recent judgment of the Supreme

3
2015 SCC Online Mad 14155
 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
9

Court in Ram Kishan v. Sh. Tarun Bajaj [(2014) 3 LW 103 : (2014)

6 CTC 236] is apposite.

“9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power

to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/
contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for
the reason that respect and authority commanded by the
courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens
that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the
judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt
jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of
law but mat by itself operates as a string of caution and unless,
thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would
neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise
jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal
in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these
proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be
hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities
in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.
(Vide : V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 2153;
Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan
Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank of Baroda v.
Sadruddin Hasan Daya, AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo
Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers
Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, AIR 2013 SC 1299).

10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be

established that disobedience of the order is wilful. The word
wilful introduces a mental element and hence, requires
looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his
actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. Wilful
means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or
unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not
encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be
done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or
stubbornly, obstinately or perversely?. Wilful act is to be
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done
negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a
person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to
do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with
evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an
order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling
circumstances under which it was not possible for the
contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be
punished. “Committal or sequestration” will not be ordered
 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
10

unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.

(Vide : S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman; (1985) 98. W.
49 : AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v.
Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1990) 1 LW 558 : AIR 1989 SC
2185; Niaz Mohammad etc. etc. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC
308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2001) 1 LW 737 : AIR 2000
SC 1880; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, AIR 2004
SC 105; State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258; and
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753).

11. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2071,
this Court dealt with a case wherein direction was issued to
the Union of India to pay the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the
applicant therein and release him from defence service. The
said amount was paid to the applicant after deducting the
income tax payable on the said amount. While dealing with
the contempt application, this Court held that withholding the
amount cannot be held to be either malafide or was there any
scope to impute that the respondents intended to violate the
direction of this Court.?

12. In Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman, AIR 2001 SC

1293, the Court while dealing with the issue whether a doubt
persisted as to the applicability of the order of this Court to
complainants held that it would not give rise to a contempt
petition. The court was dealing with a case wherein the
statutory authorities had come to the conclusion that the order
of this court was not applicable to the said complainants while
dealing with the case under the provision of West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955.

13. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations

are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt
proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport
of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same
must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the
charge within the meaning of the Act. (See : Sushila Raje Holkar
v. Anil Kak (Retd.), AIR 2008 Supp (2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735).”

14. Perusal of the above legal position would show that the

disobedience must be wilful and must be beyond a casual or

accidental/genuine inability to comply with the terms of the

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
11

order and that mere allegation or a bald statement is not

sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings. It is also settled

principle that power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to

when there is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of

contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching

consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear

case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made

out. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore,

standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all

reasonable doubt. The power of the Court, which exercises its

contempt jurisdiction, is a special and rare one. Therefore, it has

to be exercised with circumspection caution and care.

15. To initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor,

there must be a wilful, deliberate and intentional disobeying of

the order of the Court. In the case on hand, except making bald

allegations against the respondent that he violated the orders of

this Court dated 23.11.2017, the petitioner has not placed single

piece of evidence that the respondent violated the interim order

and alienated the subject property. Therefore, no cause of action

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
12

has arisen for initiating contempt proceedings against the

respondent.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case

and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court that there

is absolutely no material placed before this Court to show that the

respondent has violated the orders of this Court dated 23.11.2017,

except making some bald allegations against the respondent

without any cause of action. Thus, no contempt case is made out

by the petitioner.

17. Unless there is a deliberate and wilful violation of the

Court orders, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated on mere

allegation. As discussed above, absolutely, no material is placed

before this Court to substantiate the allegation of violation of

Court order by the petitioner. Therefore, in considered opinion of

this Court, initiation of contempt proceedings by the petitioner is

nothing but abuse of process of law, wastage of valuable time of

Court and there is deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner

to intimidate the respondent. The attempt/misadventure of this

 LNA,J
CC No.246 of 2024
13

nature of the petitioner has to be curtailed to prevent misuse of

process of law and also to deter the action of this nature.

18. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed with costs of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable to the

Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad

within a period of two weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous

applications if any shall stand closed.

_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date: 29.04.2024
Kkm