Sabi Engineering Company, Represented ... vs Mohammad Shafiq on 9 February, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sabi Engineering Company, Represented ... vs Mohammad Shafiq on 9 February, 2026

This contempt appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arises out of the judgment dated 06.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Con. Case(C)No.456 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant-petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C)No.22499 of 2024. By the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2025, the learned Single Judge closed the contempt proceedings, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate the matter in the pending writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"2. Even though the respondents sought sanction from the Government as per Annex.B, the same was rejected. Subsequently, yet another communication was issued by the respondents, as evidenced by Annex.A1 dated 25.08.2025. Today, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that, the said request is also rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, in Ext.P19, produced along with the writ petition, the amount admitted was Rs.50,11,749/- and therefore, the respondents ought to have remitted the said amount, in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. However, on going through Ext.P19, it can be seen that, CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:11629 even though a final bill amount is reckoned as Rs.50,11,749/-, it is specifically mentioned therein that, the same is pending approval with the Government and once approval from the Government is obtained, amount can be disbursed.

4. Thus it is evident that, the amount referred to in Ext.P19 in its entirety, could not be released on their own, as it requires administrative sanction from the Government. Even though the respondent had attempted to obtain the administrative sanction, as evidenced by Annex.A and communication which resulted in Annex.B, the same is reported to have been rejected. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the respondents cannot be proceeded against, in this contempt proceedings, in view of the fact that, respondents had already paid the amount to the petitioner, which could have been paid on their own. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, the remaining amount can only be released, after obtaining necessary sanction from the Government, which is a matter to be agitated in the writ petition. Therefore, I do not find any willful violation of the directions issued by this Court and hence this contempt of court proceeding is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate the matter in the writ petition."

2. On 05.02.2026, when this matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner sought time to address arguments, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt.Gen) v.

CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:11629 Bijukumar S. [2025 (2) KHC 384].

3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner.

4. On the question of maintainability of this contempt appeal, we notice that the said issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granites [2025 (1) KLT 287], wherein it was held that for an appeal to lie under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the impugned order must be inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt and cannot be independent of it. It must flow from the order punishing for contempt. All procedural steps leading to the order of punishment cannot be termed as incidental to the order punishing for contempt. For the second part of clause (IV) in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399] to apply, there must be first an order punishing for contempt. This position of law is expounded also by earlier decisions on the subject by the Apex Court referred to earlier. An order proceeding to frame and framing charges being merely a stage prior to the order of punishment cannot be considered as inextricably connected to or incidental to the order CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:11629 punishing for contempt. The order inextricably connected to such orders can be direction to purge the contempt, which also can be challenged under Section 19(1) along with the order punishing for contempt. It also has to be kept in mind that the judge decides whether contempt of the "court" is committed. In Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt.Gen) v. Bijukumar S. [2025 (2) KHC 384], following the law laid down by the Full Bench in Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287] a Division Bench of this Court held that when an issue is decided or direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independently of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Such an intra-court appeal has to be filed as a writ appeal, which has to be listed before the Division Bench as per roster and not before the Division Bench dealing with contempt appeals. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the decision of the Division Bench in Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt.Gen) [2025 (2) KHC 384] read thus;

"14. In Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287] a Full Bench of this Court considered the issue of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act and it was held that for an appeal to lie under Section 19(1), the impugned order must be inextricably connected with the order punishing for CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:11629 contempt and cannot be independent of it. It must flow from the order punishing for contempt. All procedural steps leading to the order of punishment cannot be termed as incidental to the order punishing for contempt. For the second part of clause (IV) in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399] to apply, there must be first an order punishing for contempt. This position of law is expounded also by earlier decisions on the subject by the Apex Court referred to earlier. An order proceeding to frame and framing charges being merely a stage prior to the order of punishment cannot be considered as inextricably connected to or incidental to the order punishing for contempt. The order inextricably connected to such orders can be direction to purge the contempt, which also can be challenged under Section 19(1) along with the order punishing for contempt. It also has to be kept in mind that the judge decides whether contempt of the "court" is committed. The contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor and are not a lis between the parties. When the court declares that contempt is committed and passes an order in its contempt jurisdiction, an appeal will lie. The contempt proceedings are not complete or final until the punishment is rendered. The proceedings are concluded only after the Court renders a final decision, which includes determining a sentence upon finding the party guilty of contempt. If any positive direction is given that is incidental to and connected with the order of punishing for contempt, then under an appeal filed under Section 19 can be filed challenging both the order of punishing for contempt and CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:11629 the order that is incidental to it. When any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra- court appeal (wherever such a provision exists) would be maintainable. Hence, the scheme of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Rules framed thereunder, and the decisions of the Apex Court, particularly in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399], indicate that only those orders which are inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment can be the subject matter of an appeal along with the order imposing punishment. To reiterate the phrase inextricably connected or incidental "to the order imposing punishment" mean that there must first be an order of punishment. Proceeding to framing charges for contempt is thus not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act.

15. In Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287] the Full Bench answered the reference as under;

"An appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, challenging the order when the Court, after forming a prima facie opinion, proceeds to frame a charge under Rule 14(b) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable."

16. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287], the appellant cannot invoke the provision under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, in order to challenge the impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 in Cont.Case (C)No. 2459 of 2019 and order CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:11629 dated 15.07.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Cont.Case (C)No.2459 of 2019 of the learned Single Judge, as those orders would not fall under the category of orders which are inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment. Then the question that requires consideration is as to whether those orders would fall under the category of orders in clause (V) of the judgment of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co.op.Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399], for maintaining an intra-court appeal from the orders of a learned Single Judge, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and followed by the Full Bench in Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287] when an issue is decided or direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra- court appeal would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. Such an intra-court appeal has to be filed as a writ appeal, which has to be listed before the Division Bench as per the roster, and not before the Division Bench dealing with contempt appeals."

5. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the order dated 06.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Con.Case (C)No.456 of 2025, whereby the said contempt case was closed without prejudice to the right of the appellant-petitioner to agitate the matter in the pending writ petition, is not an order appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 9 2026:KER:11629 In such circumstances, this Contempt Appeal fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, leaving open the right of the appellant-petitioner to raise appropriate legal and factual contentions in W.P.(C)No. 22499 of 2024 pending before the learned Single Judge.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE nak CON.APP(C)No.3 OF 2025 10 2026:KER:11629 APPENDIX OF CON.APP(C) NO. 3 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KTDFC/ BOTP/KKD/113/ 2013 DATED 13.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE KTDFC AND RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court