CA/2/2026 of R.R.Sing Vs Boddu Rattaiah, on 27 January 2026

1. R.R.SING, , CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4-PLATE A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI - 110023.

2. SRI TARUN KANTI MOHANTY, , DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4-PLATE A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI - 110023.

3. SRI KOTA KOTESWAR RAO,, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REGIONAL OFFICE D.NO.28-1- 1, 2ND FLOOR, SRI NITYA COMPLEX, RAMA TALKIES ROAD, CBM COMPOUND, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530003.

4. P.SATISH BABU,, REGIONAL MANAGER,

PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT - THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., REGIONAL OFFICER. NEAR RAMA TALKIES,

DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530016.

...APPLICANT(S) AND

1. BODDU RATTAIAH, S/o. Late Koteswar Rao, Aged 63years, Occ. Retd. Development Officer, The Oriental Insurance Company, Bose Road, Tenali, R/o. D.No.2-9-2, Gandhi Nagar, Tenali - 522201.

...RESPONDENT The Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the contempt appeal by setting aside the order, dated 31.12.2025 in Contempt Case No.4802 of 2023 in W.P. No.2487/2021 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the order dated 31.12.2025 passed in C.C No. 4802 of 2023 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 31.12.2025 of Learned Single Judge Justice Venkateshwarlu Nimmagadda passed in C.C.No. 4802 of 2023 on the file of this Honble Court, pending disposal of the Contempt appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Applicant(S):

1. BANDA SAI SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO:02 of 2026 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

This Contempt Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.C.No.4802 of 2024.

2. Heard Mr C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr B.Sai Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants on record and perused the material available on record.

3. Complaining willful disobedience of the order, dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.24837 of 2021, the petitioner therein filed C.C.No.4802 of 2024 under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents therein for intentional and willful disobedience of the Court order. Having heard the matter in detail, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Contempt Case holding that the respondents are liable for punishment under Sections 10 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the following order was passed, which is extracted herein under:- “14. In view of forgoing discussions, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- each as costs for violation of law to be payable in favour of the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after such payment the cost memo shall be filed with the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati within one (01) week thereafter”.

4. Before going into the merits of this case, we intends to look into the maintainability of this appeal which was filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). For proper adjudication of this case, Section 19 of the Act is extracted herein under:-

1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt:- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that—

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed—

(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

5. On a bare perusal of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as extracted herein above, it is clear that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. On perusal of the order impugned in the present Contempt Appeal, it is evident that no order of punishment has been imposed. The learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the Contempt Case directed Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs for violation of law, to be payable in favour of the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and to file cost memo to that effect before the Registrar (Judicial).

6. In our considered view, the costs as directed by the learned Single Judge are different from the punishment that may be imposed against the contemnor, which was provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is provided under Section 12 of the Act that the contemnors may be punished for a simple imprisonment upto six months, a fine upto Rs.2,000/-, or both. As such, the fine mentioned in Section 12 of the Act should not be interpreted as costs imposed by the learned Single Judge. As such, in our considered view, there is no punishment imposed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the Contempt Case. Thus, this Contempt Appeal does not lie under Section 19 of the Act.

7. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is some ambiguity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our considerable view, it is appropriate and desirable to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, this Contempt Appeal is dismissed holding that it is not maintainable and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

_____________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Dated: 28.01.2026 TM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 02 of 2026

Dated: 28.01.2026 TM