Case Name: M/s Khurana Brothers v. Anand Bardhan, Principal Secretary & Anr.
Citation: Contempt Petition (C) No. 27 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2023
Date of Order: 14 October 2025
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Held: The Supreme Court held that contempt proceedings for non-compliance of a High Court order lie before the High Court, even if the Supreme Court has granted leave and permitted withdrawal of an intra-court appeal. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application it applies only where a superior court’s appellate or revisional order has substantively adjudicated the matter. Since the Supreme Court’s earlier order of 4 January 2023 merely allowed withdrawal of the intra-court appeal, thereby restoring the Single Judge’s order, no merger occurred. Consequently, any alleged disobedience pertains to the Single Judge’s order, and contempt lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court.
Summary: The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s order dated 04.01.2023, which had allowed withdrawal of an intra-court appeal and restored the Single Judge’s order. The petitioner contended that since the Supreme Court had granted leave, its order superseded the High Court’s, invoking the doctrine of merger. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the doctrine does not apply mechanically to every superior order; it depends on the nature and scope of appellate jurisdiction. Citing State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 681), the Court reiterated that merger occurs only when the appellate order substitutes or modifies the lower court’s order. Here, since the Supreme Court had not adjudicated the appeal on merits but merely permitted withdrawal, the operative order remained that of the Single Judge. Hence, the petitioner’s proper forum for contempt was the High Court.
Decision: Contempt petition dismissed. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings before the High Court if the Single Judge’s order had indeed been violated. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying dispute.