Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. There is yet another reason to reject the petitioner's contention in the present case. It is well accepted principle that a party in contempt is entitled to hearing if it has purged its contempt. This view was accepted by the Court of Appeal in (19521 2 All ER 567 (supra). The question then arises how a party in contempt is required to purge the contempt. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Executive Council of the University should withdraw its resolution dated 1st October. 1971, and restore the position of the parties as they were prior to that date. If that were done the contempt would be purged, otherwise the contempt continued, hence the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. I am not inclined to accept this contention In my opinion a party in contempt purged its contempt by obeying the orders of the Court or bv undergoing the penalty imposed by the Court. Tn the present case, no order of conviction was passed against the respondents. The Contempt Judge accepted the unqualified apology of the respondents and discharged the notices of contempt issued against them. By tendering unqualified apology the Members of the Executive Council purged their contempt and more so when the Contempt Judge accepted their apology. In M. Y. Shareef v. Judges of Nagpur High Court, AIR 1955 SC 19, their Lordships held that the unqualified apology tendered by the two appellants in that case was sufficient to purge their contempt. The order of the High Court in refusing to accept the apology or to regard the contempt as having been purged was set aside and it was held that the apology, if accepted, should be regarded sufficient to purge the contempt. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondents' unqualified apology had been accepted by the learned Judge hearing the contempt application, hence the contempt was purged. Thereafter there was no continuance of the contemptuous act. Once the contempt is purged by a party, there is no rule of law permitting striking out of defence or denial of right of hearing to the party in contempt. Since the respondents have purged their contempt, by tendering unqualified apology, they are entitled to hearing and their defence cannot be struck off.