This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court.
Facts Of The Case:
The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge’s order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s order. However, before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel did not press the appeal on merits. Instead, he sought permission to withdraw the intra-court appeal filed before the High Court’s Division Bench, aiming to restore the parties to the position under the Single Judge’s original order. The Supreme Court accepted this prayer in its order dated 04.01.2023, disposing of the appeal and directing that the intra-court appeal would stand withdrawn and the parties would work out their rights per the Single Judge’s order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the Single Judge’s order as restored by the Supreme Court’s directive.
Procedural History:
The procedural history originates from an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court. An intra-court appeal was filed against this order before a Division Bench of the same High Court. Although the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, its observations prompted the appellant, M/s Khurana Brothers, to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon grant of leave in Civil Appeal No. 76/2023, the appellant, instead of arguing the merits, sought and obtained permission from the Supreme Court to withdraw the intra-court appeal entirely. The Supreme Court’s order dated 04.01.2023 disposed of the civil appeal on these terms, relegating the parties back to the Single Judge’s order. The subsequent contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with that revived Single Judge order, was filed directly in the Supreme Court, which is the proceeding detailed in the provided judgment.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the doctrine of merger is not rigid or universally applicable; its application depends on the nature of the appellate order and the scope of jurisdiction exercised. In this case, the Supreme Court’s order merely permitted the withdrawal of the intra-court appeal before the High Court. Consequently, by legal fiction, the Division Bench’s order ceased to exist, and the parties reverted to the stage prior to its filing, leaving the Single Judge’s original order operative. Therefore, any alleged violation pertained solely to that Single Judge’s order. The Court concluded that contempt jurisdiction, if any, lay exclusively with the High Court to enforce its own order, and not with the Supreme Court.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition, declining to exercise jurisdiction. It held that the proper forum for enforcing the Single Judge’s order was the High Court itself. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate separate contempt proceedings before the Uttarakhand High Court to allege any violation of the Single Judge’s order, while making no observation on the merits of the alleged disobedience.