Contempt Petition Dismissed; Supreme Court Directs Complainant to Move High Court for Alleged Violation of Single Judge's Order

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of this Court’s order dated 04.01.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 76/2023. The petition arose from an intra‑court appeal before the Allahabad High Court and challenged the respondents’ alleged failure to comply with an order of a Single Judge which, the petitioner says, was restored by this Court’s order of January 4, 2023.

The Court held that the present contempt petition could not be maintained before this Court and that any contempt, if established, would lie before the High Court. The Bench explained that the doctrine of merger “is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application” and that its application depended on the nature and scope of the appellate order. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the case on hand, this Court had allowed the petitioner to withdraw the intra court appeal in which the order under challenge in appeal before this Court was passed. As a result, once the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court stood withdrawn so did all orders passed therein. Once that is the position, by fiction of law the parties would stand relegated to the stage at which they were on the date of filing of the intra court appeal. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court would operate from the date of this Court’s order as if it had never been challenged.” The Bench disposed of the contempt petition while expressly declining to express any opinion on the merits.

Background

The dispute began with Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2023, filed against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in an intra‑court appeal arising from a Single Judge’s order. The petitioner maintained that observations in the Division Bench’s order worsened its position compared to the Single Judge’s order and sought leave to appeal to this Court. After leave was granted, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the intra‑court appeal so that the position under the Single Judge’s order would be restored; this Court allowed that withdrawal by its order dated 04.01.2023 and directed that “parties shall work out their respective rights in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.” The present contempt petition alleged that the respondents did not comply with the Single Judge’s order as restored.

On the last hearing, the petitioner argued that because leave had been granted by this Court before the withdrawal, the doctrine of merger applied and therefore contempt jurisdiction remained with this Court. The Bench rejected that contention, relying on the settled principle that merger’s application depended on the statutory scope of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and the nature of the orders involved, citing State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. The Court noted that, because the intra‑court appeal and the orders passed in it stood withdrawn, the parties were restored to the position existing at the time of filing of the intra‑court appeal and the Single Judge’s order operated from the date of this Court’s order. Consequentially, any allegation of non‑compliance with the Single Judge’s order must be pursued before the High Court. The contempt petition and all pending applications were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to initiate proceedings before the High Court; no interim directions were issued and the Court did not rule on the merits.

Case Details: Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 27/2025 in C.A. No. 76/2023 Case Title: M/S KHURANA BROTHERS v. ANAND BARDHAN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned counsel (names not indicated) For the Respondent(s): Learned counsel (names not indicated)