The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed three special appeals, ruling that an intra-court appeal against an order framing a charge in contempt proceedings is not maintainable if the Contempt Court has not decided any issue relating to the merits of the original dispute. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that framing a charge for non-compliance of a court order is an exercise within the contempt jurisdiction and does not constitute an overstepping of authority that would warrant an intra-court appeal.
The judgment was delivered in a set of three connected special appeals filed by the Director General, U.P. Council for Agriculture Research, challenging a single order dated July 31, 2025, by which a Contempt Court had framed charges against the appellant for non-compliance with an interim order of the writ court.
Background of the Case
The appellant challenged the Contempt Court’s order, arguing that it was passed in excess of jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether the Contempt Court was justified in framing charges against the appellant while an application filed by the appellant for the vacation of the interim stay order was still pending before the writ court. The appellant contended that this action was premature and legally flawed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, counsels Dr. L. P. Misra and Jaideep Srivastava argued that the Contempt Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the controversy, which was the subject matter of the writ court. They submitted that the Contempt Court should have deferred the proceedings pending the decision on the application to vacate the interim order. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others (2006) 5 SCC 399, it was argued that where a court in contempt proceedings decides an issue or makes a direction relating to the merits of the dispute, such an order is appealable.
Conversely, counsels for the respondents, Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, and Shri Ayush Chaudhary, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the intra-court appeals. They argued that the impugned order was purely an exercise of contempt jurisdiction and did not decide on the merits of the case. They submitted that the order did not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in Midnapore (supra). The respondents further relied on a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow and 2 others 2024 SCC OnLine All 5435, which had summarized the principles for when an intra-court appeal from a contempt order would lie.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court first addressed the preliminary issue of maintainability. The bench extensively referred to its own judgment in Subhash Chandra (supra), which had analyzed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Midnapore (supra) and Ajay Kumar Bhalla Vs. Prakash Kumar Dixit 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1874.
The Court reiterated the principles summarized in paragraph 69 of the Subhash Chandra judgment, which states that a special appeal is maintainable only when the Contempt Court “oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute.” It clarified that the focus of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the court’s authority, not to resolve the underlying dispute.
Applying these principles, the bench examined the impugned order dated July 31, 2025. It observed that the Contempt Court had merely “recapitulated the earlier orders passed in contempt jurisdiction” and found that the interim order of the writ court had not been complied with despite time being granted. The High Court noted, “There is no iota of any finding given by the Contempt Judge either on the merits of the dispute pending before the writ court nor it has passed any direction which may impact the rights of the parties on merit, before the writ court.”
The Court also took into account that the appellant had previously approached the Supreme Court against an order dated July 10, 2025, where the Contempt Court had rejected a plea for deferment. The Apex Court, in its order dated July 28, 2025, had declined to interfere but granted liberty to the appellant to raise all grounds, including the pendency of the stay vacation application, before the Contempt Court. The High Court observed that the Contempt Court had considered this and found no new reason to defer the proceedings again.
Regarding the appellant’s reliance on the Vinay Kumar Pandey (supra) case, the High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s observation that a Contempt Court should wait for the outcome of a stay vacation application was not a binding principle “to be followed unquestioningly” but rather an observation “to be followed with judicial prudence and not as a mathematical theorem.”
The bench further noted that the Contempt Court had recorded that the appellant failed to show any material indicating that the application for stay vacation was pressed with “promptitude before the writ court.”
Decision of the Court
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the Contempt Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction. The act of framing a charge after finding non-compliance was deemed an exercise “in aid of the proceedings under the contempt jurisdiction.”
The Court stated, “Considering the sequence of events and the order passed, it cannot be said that the contempt court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in law.”
For these reasons, the High Court found the special appeals non-maintainable and dismissed them. However, it granted liberty to the appellant to move an application before the writ court to request an expeditious decision on the pending stay vacation application.
