Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"By the order dated 10.1.2012, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in his absence on the ground that the petitioner respondent has not moved any application to bring on record the successor since the contemner was transferred. Tribunal noted that an application for recall of an order passed in a contempt proceeding, is not maintainable. So far as the finding of Tribunal that recall/review application is not maintainable, seems to be correct. Virtually, recalling of the order dated 10.1.2012, will amount to review of earlier decision was was passed with the finding on merit to the extent that successor officer has not been brought on record. Review/recall or appeal are the statutory remedies, vide AIR 1966 SC 641, Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, 1988 (14) ALR 706, Vijai Bahadur Vs. State of U.P., 1995 (26) ALR 627, Ram Jiwan Singh and others Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and others, 1979 (5) ALR 168, 1998 (33) ALR 456, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and others, 1997 (88) RD 562, Smt. Shivraji and others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, AIR 1970 SC 1273, Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, 1987 (13) ALR 680, Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Mgt. of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur etc., AIR 1964 SC 436, Laxman Purushottam Pimputkar Vs. The State of Bombay and others, and AIR 1965 SC 1457, Patel Chunibhai Dajibha etc. Vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another. Unless provided under the Act, no application for review/recall may be moved. The contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for review of a judgment. Hence the impugned order dated 13.9.2012 does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality"