Single Judge Cannot Reopen Contempt Finding of Coordinate Bench, Supreme Court Remits Matter Back to High Court

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by majority shareholders Rajan Chadha and another challenging the dismissal of a contempt petition by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether a later Single Judge could revisit and reverse an earlier coordinate Single Judge’s finding that the respondent had committed contempt of court.

The Court allowed the appeal on procedural grounds and remitted the matter to the High Court to proceed from the stage of the earlier order dated 5 December 2023. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent Judge had acted beyond jurisdiction by effectively sitting in appeal over the coordinate Bench’s finding. The Court noted that one Judge could only have considered whether contempt had been purged or, if not, whether punishment should follow; he could not reopen the earlier conclusion on guilt. The Court recorded the earlier coordinate Bench’s finding that the respondent was “guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and thus, has committed contempt of the orders of the Court.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not.” The appeal was allowed and there was no order as to costs.

Background The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 December 2019 concerning RBT Private Ltd., a fabric dyeing and printing company. The MoU envisaged transfer of shareholding and reorganisation of management; the respondent was to purchase the appellants’ shareholding and run the company. Disputes followed: appellants alleged that the respondent had begun operating another entity from company premises, siphoned plant and machinery, and defaulted on instalments of a term loan. The appellants issued a notice under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and arbitration proceedings were instituted. The appellants also moved the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for interim relief, and a new arbitrator was appointed.

The arbitrator, on a prima facie reading, directed the respondent to continue payment of EMIs into the company’s loan account and later appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory assets. The Local Commissioner’s report showed most machines present except one. The appellants filed a contempt petition in the High Court on 13 January 2021 alleging non‑compliance with the arbitrator’s and High Court’s directions. During pendency, NCLT Chandigarh admitted an insolvency petition against the company and declared a moratorium; the arbitrator adjourned proceedings sine die.

On 5 December 2023, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court found the respondent guilty of “intentionally and malafidely violating” the earlier orders and granted four weeks to purge contempt or to file an affidavit explaining why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. After change of roster, another Single Judge, on 3 July 2024, discharged the show cause notice and dismissed the contempt petition, holding there was no “wilful and deliberate disobedience” by the respondent. The appellants challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants urged that the later Judge impermissibly reviewed the coordinate Bench’s finding and thus acted contrary to settled judicial propriety. Counsel for the respondent defended the later order as a considered application of Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Supreme Court limited its review to the correctness of the procedure and held that once a coordinate Bench had recorded guilt, a subsequent Judge could not revisit that finding; the matter was remitted to the High Court to proceed from the stage of the 5 December 2023 order. The Court allowed the appeal and directed no costs; earlier procedural relief granted by this Court dispensing with the respondent’s personal presence remained on record.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. __________ OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17013 of 2024) Case Title: Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shikhil Suri, Senior Counsel