Section 23 in The Contempt Of Courts (Cat) Rules, 1992
23. Application to pending proceedings .-These rules shall as far as practicable be applicable ... CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (Name of the Bench) Place Contempt Petition Civil/Criminal No................................ Petitioner ........................................................ Vs. Respondent .................................................... (here mention the name and address of the person
been filed under Section 17 of the CAT Act read with Rule 5 of the CAT Contempt of Court Act, 1987 for not compliance ... Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 or the CAT (Procedure) Rules), 1987 or CAT Rules of Practice or the contempt of Court Act or CAT (Contempt
Contempt Of Courts (Cat) Rules, 1992
UNION OF INDIA
India
The Contempt Of Courts (Cat) Rules, 1992
Rule THE-CONTEMPT-OF-COURTS-CAT-RULES ... available and this content could not be verified.]
The Contempt Of Courts (Cat) Rules, 1992 Published vide G.S.R. 757(E), dated 8.9.1992, published
this
Court either before this Court or before the CAT,
the contempt Court could not have been concluded
that there was a strict compliance ... contempt proceedings No.170/00057/2017 dated
21.03.2018 is hereby set aside.
11. While disposing of the contempt
proceedings on merits, the CAT
CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'
12
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
opinion that, contempt proceedings ... CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'
37
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
23. This Contempt Petition
2017/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
erroneous ought to have been challenged before the CAT in an
independent proceedings not by continuing the contempt
proceedings. Secondly ... 2017/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the order passed by the CAT in contempt
proceedings
order issued by the CAT?
32. We have quoted the order of the CAT hereinabove and
what the CAT ordered was that the IREM determining ... been noted
by the CAT and yet the CAT did not discuss this judgment.
It is obvious that the CAT did not go into
which arose out of the order passed by the CAT in a contempt case.
14. learned Counsel for the respondents drew our attention to decision ... High Court under Article 226 because the order passed by CAT in contempt jurisdiction in view of the relevant provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal
contempt case and not directing implementation of its order
dated 12th May, 2016 and in not punishing the respondents for contempt
thereof.
8. CAT ... whether not the scope of interference with an order of CAT closing the
contempt case, should be in an extremely narrow compass, considering that
even
order
dated 26th April, 2017 passed by the Principal Bench, CAT in Contempt
Petition No.633/2016 arising out of OA No.3826/2013. There ... Petitioners
had challenged the order of the CAT dismissing the Petitioners‟ Contempt
Petition against the non-compliance by the Respondents of the directions
issued
