Rajiv Dawar vs High Court Of Delhi

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's conviction under Section 2(c) read with Sections 10 & 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution was improper due to lack of opportunity for the appellant to present evidence or cross-examine the complainant. The Court emphasized that in contempt proceedings, the contemnor must be afforded a fair chance to establish innocence. Consequently, the Court found the allegations unproven and ordered a refund of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant instead of upholding the contempt conviction.