Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court, exercising its contempt jurisdiction, issued a notice to the alleged contemnors to show cause by 11 April 2025 as to why Rule should not be issued against them for violating its earlier order dated 20 March 2025. The Court found prima facie evidence of continued construction and advertisement for sale of the property despite the clear restraining order. It also appointed a Special Officer to conduct an immediate site inspection within 24 hours to ascertain the extent of ongoing violations.
Facts
The petitioners filed a contempt application alleging deliberate disobedience of a subsisting judicial order. On 20 March 2025, the Calcutta High Court had passed an interim order directing the respondents not to proceed with any construction activity or alienate, transfer, or otherwise deal with a specific property until 23 April 2025. Despite being duly served with this order, the alleged contemnors were reportedly continuing construction on the site and had also published advertisements for the sale of the said property on a “price on request” basis.
Issues
- Whether the alleged contemnors violated the High Court’s restraining order dated 20 March 2025?
- Whether a case is made out to initiate contempt proceedings and appoint a Special Officer to verify on-ground compliance?
- What interim directions are warranted to preserve the sanctity of judicial orders?
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the clear and binding nature of the Court’s interim order, the respondents continued to carry out construction on the property. Further, the respondents had actively advertised the property for sale, which amounted to a willful and contumacious breach of the Court’s directive. In view of this, they prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings and requested the appointment of a Special Officer to take possession of the premises and file a factual report on the violations.
Respondent’s Arguments
At this preliminary stage, the respondents had not yet filed a reply. The Court was only concerned with issuing notice and seeking their response to the show cause proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, civil contempt includes willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. The order dated 20 March 2025, which imposed express restraints on construction and alienation, was binding upon the parties once communicated.
The Court took into consideration:
- The photographic evidence submitted by the petitioners showing ongoing construction activity.
- Advertisements published offering the disputed property for sale, indicating defiance of the Court’s direction.
- The fact that the order was duly served upon the alleged contemnors, triggering a legal obligation to comply.
Precedent Analysis
Although the order does not expressly refer to prior judgments, it implicitly follows the established legal standard under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that any act which undermines the authority of a subsisting judicial order—particularly one granting interim relief—is a fit case for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Krishna Rao observed that:
“Perused the order dated 20th March, 2025, the photographs showing the construction is going on and the advertisement is being made by the alleged contemnors for sale of property as per price on request.”
On this basis, the Court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and appointed Mr. Altamash Alim, Advocate, as the Special Officer. He was directed to:
- Visit the site within 24 hours.
- Ascertain whether construction was ongoing.
- Determine whether advertisements for sale had been published.
- Submit a report by 11 April 2025.
The Court also directed that police protection be provided, if sought, to ensure unobstructed inspection.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the conduct of the respondents required urgent scrutiny. It accordingly:
- Issued show cause notice to the alleged contemnors.
- Appointed a Special Officer to investigate the property status.
- Directed the Special Officer to submit a factual report.
- Fixed the matter for further hearing on 11 April 2025.
Implications
The order underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for willful disobedience of interim injunctions, especially in real estate disputes. It reflects the Court’s readiness to deploy coercive procedural tools—including appointment of Special Officers and direction for police aid—to enforce its authority. This case sends a stern message to parties seeking to bypass court directives through continued construction or clandestine transactions.
FAQs
Q1. What is considered civil contempt under Indian law?
Civil contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as “willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.”
Q2. Can a Court appoint a Special Officer in a contempt matter?
Yes. Courts have inherent powers to appoint a Special Officer to inspect property, gather evidence, and report facts to aid the Court in determining whether its orders have been violated.
Q3. What are the consequences if contempt is proved?
If the Court finds the respondents guilty of civil contempt, it can impose penalties, including fines, detention in civil prison, and further coercive orders to secure compliance.
