Summary
The Supreme Court distinguished statutory contempt jurisdiction from the trial court’s power to act upon disobedience of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Jammu and Kashmir CPC. Although styled as contempt, the application was to be treated and renumbered as a Rule 2A application. The trial court must first determine whether its injunction was disobeyed and only then apply that rule’s consequences. Contentions concerning separate contracts and arbitration remained open.
Issues
- Whether an application alleging breach of an injunction should proceed as contempt or under Order XXXIX Rule 2A.
Held
- An application labelled contempt may in substance seek action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Jammu and Kashmir CPC. That jurisdiction is distinct from proceedings under the Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act; the application here was to be treated and renumbered under Rule 2A. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The trial court must first determine disobedience of its injunction. Only upon an affirmative finding should the consequences under Order XXXIX Rule 2A follow. The Supreme Court itself did not determine whether disobedience occurred. (¶ 7)
- The parties could raise all available contentions before the trial court, including the appellants’ arguments about separate contracts and the pending Section 8 arbitration application. Expeditious decision was directed, preferably within three months of receipt of the judgment. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Application to be renumbered and considered under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, with disobedience determined first; all available contentions preserved. Decision preferably within three months of receipt. No costs.