LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mr. Vinay Prakash Singh vs. Sameer Gehlaut & Ors. (M.A. No.1902 of 2022 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2120 of 2018)

Diary No. · 2022 INSC 1202Decided 14 Nov 2022
Diary No.33420 of 2022
K.M. Joseph · Hrishikesh Roy

Background

Shivinder Mohan Singh (a contemnor, referred to as Contemnor No.10) had earlier been held guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court's orders and, by a final order dated 22.09.2022, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment plus fine. That order did not specify when the six-month term would start, and Tihar Jail authorities treated it as starting only from 22.09.2022. The applicant sought a clarification that his sentence should instead be deemed to run from 03.02.2020, the date he was first produced before the Court in the contempt case (while he was actually in custody in a separate, unrelated case), relying on Section 428 CrPC which allows set-off of pre-conviction detention.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the plea, holding that Section 428 CrPC requires detention to have been undergone "in the same case" as the one resulting in conviction and sentence: here, the applicant's custody throughout 2020 was in connection with a different, unrelated case, not the contempt proceeding. His production before the Court on 03.02.2020 was only to give him an opportunity to purge the contempt, not because he was in custody for the contempt case itself; he was sent back to custody in the other case afterward. Distinguishing Niranjan Singh (which dealt with bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, not set-off under Section 428), the Court held no detention "in the same case" had been shown, so no set-off was warranted, and dismissed the application.

Lesson Learnt

The benefit of set-off for pre-conviction custody under Section 428 CrPC applies only to time spent in custody specifically "in connection with" the very case in which sentence is later imposed: time spent in jail for an unrelated case, even if concurrent, cannot be borrowed to reduce a separate sentence.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case