Page 1

                                1                      

     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17688/2013                                           (CC 7200/2013)

M/S RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES                      Petitioner

                VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                       Respondents

O R D E R

Delay condoned.  

This special leave petition is directed against  

the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,  

Bench at Aurangabad passed in Contempt Petition No.  

175 of 2005 arising out of Writ Petition No.5219 of  

2001, which was rejected as the learned Single Judge  

was of the view that the contempt petition related to  

a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 11%  

p.a. since there was a mistake in the calculation for  

the  period  in  which  the  amount  was  temporarily  

invested in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme  

Court.   

It  appears  that  the  petitioner  had  filed  a  

contempt petition in the High Court of Bombay alleging  

that the directions and order passed by this Court in  

Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002 whereby this Court had

Page 2

                                2                      

allowed interest to be claimed by the petitioner @ 11%  

since  the  sale  of  the  property  for  which  the  

petitioner was a bidder, had been wrongly cancelled  

with  which  this  Court  refused  to  interfere  but  

maintained the order of refund amount along with 11%  

p.a. simple interest within a period of four months.   

The  Petitioner  felt  aggrieved  as  the  amount  

accruing towards 11% interest as per computation of  

the  petitioner  had  not  been  deposited  by  the  

respondent  State.   However,  the  petitioner  did  not  

move this Court which had passed the order alleging  

contempt but moved the High Court of Bombay stating  

that the Respondents have indulged in contempt as they  

did  not  deposit  the  amount  accrued  towards  11%  

interest which was directed by the Supreme Court in  

Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002.   The learned Single  

Judge dismissed the contempt petition  as he was of  

the  view  that  the  contempt  petition  alleging  non-

compliance of  the judgment  and order  passed by  the  

Supreme Court will have to be addressed by the Supreme  

Court itself  and not  by the  High Court,  especially  

when no such liberty was given by the Supreme Court to  

initiate  any  proceeding  in  the  High  Court  alleging  

non-compliance of its order. Learned Single Judge has  

also relied upon certain authorities in support of the

Page 3

                                3                      

view that contempt petition cannot be entertained by  

the High Court alleging non-compliance of the order  

passed by the Supreme Court.   

Having perused the reasons in the light of the  

submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we find  

no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court as it  

cannot be disputed that the judgment and order passed  

by a particular Court, especially the Supreme Court if  

alleged not to have been complied, will have to be  

taken care of and addressed by the Court which passed  

the  order  sought  to  be  complied.   The  petitioner,  

therefore,  wrongly  approached  the  High  Court  for  

initiating  contempt  proceedings  and  the  same  has  

rightly not been entertained.  Challenge to the said  

order by this special leave petition, therefore, is  

not fit  to be  entertained; hence  the special  leave  

petition is dismissed.  

However,  counsel  for  the  petitioner  submits  

that if this Court is of the view that the petitioner  

had approached the wrong forum for initiating contempt  

proceedings, he should not be deprived of the liberty  

to  approach  the  appropriate  forum,  which  is  the  

Supreme  Court,  for  initiating  fresh  contempt  

proceedings  alleging  non-compliance  of  the  judgment

Page 4

                                4                      

and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.  

8539 of 2002.   

We make it clear that we are not coming in the  

way of the petitioner to take any appropriate steps  

before  any  appropriate  Forum  for  compliance  of  the  

order and judgment passed by this Court and therefore,  

he is at liberty to take recourse to any legal remedy  

that may be available to him under the law including a  

contempt petition which obviously will be dealt with  

by the appropriate Court on its own merits.

........................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

........................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI APRIL 08, 2013