Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, Learned Senior Counsel representing the opposite parties has made four-fold submissions in support of his contention that the instant contempt proceeding is not maintainable in law. The first submission made by Mr. Chakraborty is that there is nothing on record to establish that the opposite parties have wilfully violated the order of injunction granted against the opposite parties temporarily. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the condition for continuation of the order of temporary injunction was to refer the matter to the arbitrator by each of the parties within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order i.e. 10.05.2013, failing which the injunction order will be automatically vacated. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the opposite party Railway Authority has not referred the matter to the arbitrator within the stipulated period and as such the order of injunction granted by Learned Judge has been automatically vacated on 10.06.2013. The second submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that there is possibility of two interpretations of the order of injunction granted by Learned Judge of the City Civil Court and as such the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked by this court on the plea of wilful violation of the order. The third submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that the petitioner cannot directly invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this court for violation of order of the subordinate courts, unless the subordinate courts make a reference to the High Court in accordance with Rule 19A of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. Mr. Chakraborty has elaborated this point by submitting that the records in connection with wilful violation of order of any subordinate courts lies in the subordinate court and unless the records are forwarded to this court by making a reference by Learned Judge of the subordinate courts as laid down in Rule 19A of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975, this court will be handicapped to deal with the said contempt matter. The last submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that the petitioner has not invoked the alternative remedy available under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the order of temporary injunction granted by Learned Judge of the court below under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in the nature of order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for whose violation the remedy is available under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Chakraborty has relied on the decisions of "Rudraiah V. State of Karnataka" reported in AIR 1982 Karnataka 182, "Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen V. Mrs. Kamla Mathur" reported in 1983 Cri. L. J. 495 and "Samir Kumar Sarkar V. Maharaj Singh" reported in 1982(II) CHN 213 in support of the argument advanced by him.

8. The next contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that the contempt does not lie when the impugned order can be interpreted in two different ways. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find that there is any scope of making two interpretations of the order for whose violation the instant contempt petition is filed by the petitioner. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the order of temporary injunction granted by Learned Judge of the City Civil Court is in the nature of order passed in a suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for whose violation remedy is available under the provisions of 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order of temporary injunction is passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a pending suit and the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure can be sought for when the said suit is pending. In the instant case, the order of injunction is passed as a temporary measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pending settlement of dispute between the parties by way of arbitration for which effective step has not been taken by the parties as directed by Learned Judge of the court below. The order of injunction for a period of one month pending settlement of dispute between the parties by arbitration cannot be in the nature of temporary injunction issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure pending final disposal of the suit and as such the petitioner may not have the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure as contended on behalf of the opposite parties. However, the alternative remedy for appointment an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not been invoked by the petitioner.

9. With the above factual matrix and rival contentions made by the parties, it is necessary to discuss the case laws cited on behalf of the opposite parties. In the case of "Rudrai V. State of Karnataka" reported in AIR 1982 Karnataka 182 it is held by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that in case of disobedience or breach of order of temporary injunction during the pendency of a suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, because in such cases action is contemplated by the very court which issues the order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the reported case the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked for violation of the order of temporary injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas in the instant case the contempt jurisdiction is invoked for alleged violation of the order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for which remedy may not be available under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the ratio of the said decision will not be applicable in the facts of the present case.