Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Ashoke Kumar Rai vs Ashoke Arora And Anr. on 17 December, 1991

Haridwar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2003

24. Section 19, which I have quoted earlier says that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act says that pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged the contempt. From Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 a castle is sought to be build saying that if the execution of punishment can be suspended or, the order appealed against if can be suspended then in the present case detention of the petitioner occasioned by non-grant of bail which would amount to punishment, therefore, this appeal is maintainable. Reliance for the purpose is also placed on Calcutta High Court decision in the matter of Ashoke Kumar v. Ashoke Arora and Anr. to contend that the appeal would be maintainable. In the opinion of this Court Sub-section (2) of Section 19 does not provide that in what circumstances, the appeal can be filed. An appeal can be filed against any order or decision passed or given by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Sub-section (2) simply provides that what powers can be exercised by the Appellate Court.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R S Garg - Full Document

Sri Ashis Chakraborty And Ors. vs Hindustan Lever Sramik Karmachari ... on 19 December, 1991

12. Even though we take into consideration these decisions we have to hold, which we do in the facts and circumstances of the present case as we have held in Ashoke Kumar Rai v. Ashoke Arora and Anr., (F.M.A.T. No. 2146 of 1991 decided by us on 17.12.91 that the decision in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajanlal (1988)3 SCC 26, is not attracted to the facts of the present case in view of the inconsistency between this decision of the Supreme Court and that of its earlier decisions in Baradakanta v. Chief Justice G.K. Mishra, and by the invocation of the principle of law enunciated in; the five-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, , the pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same composition or a smaller number of Judges and in order that such a judgment would be found binding, it is not necessary that the matter should have to be referred to a Full Court or that pronouncement by a Constitution Bench is necessary and for findings an answer to the question as to when the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt comes into play, we are bound to follow the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier decision of Baradakanta v. Chief Justice G. K. Mishra, in preference to the decision in D. N. Taneja v. Bhajanlal reported in AIR (1988)3 SCC 26. Further more it being not a case of criminal contempt, we are compelled to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was an uncalled for exercise of contempt jurisdiction by this Court in the manner as done by the learned Single Judge while altering his previous decision or directives without going into a finding at all as to whether or not a contempt has really been committed by any of the contemners as mentioned in the application before the said learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was really using his contempt jurisdiction in a case not of criminal contempt since he was not vested with the power in the said jurisdiction at all, it being the sole prerogative of Criminal Division Bench and the order is clearly of no force of applicability.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tnd.Mercantile Bank ... vs S.C.Sekar & Ors on 5 December, 2008

12. The contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that the detention in such circumstances would also be a form of punishment Under Section 12 is really untenable. The legislature in its wisdom does not use surplus words but obviously uses such words which would advance its object and would remove the mischief of ambiguity. We have exhaustiibly dealt with all the contingencies in this regard over appealability or otherwise of an order or decision in Ashoke Kumar Rai v. Ashoke Arora, F.M.A.T. No. 2146 of 1991 decided by us on 17.12.91 to hold that even though it was Stated in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajanlal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 that unless a punishment is imposed, no appeal lies against it, at best relates to a case of criminal contempt and nothing beyond and if any order or decision is arrived at deciding any bone of contention or any issue in the controversy, an appeal lies."
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

In Re: Tapan Roy And Ors. vs Unknown on 31 January, 1997

Similar provision as contained in Article 129 relating to Supreme Court is also there in Article 215 relating to the High Court. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court confirm the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in, Ashoke Kr. Rai v. Ashoke Arora, 1992 C Cr LR (Cal) 187 (Para 5) that the constitutional guarantee regarding the powers of the High Court inherent in it as a Court of record, as contained in Article 215, is rather absolute in term and is not subject to any ordinary legislation, irrespective of the question whether this constitutional guarantee comes by way of recognition or by way of grant of contempt jurisdiction. In this said decision of the Supreme Court in re: Ajay Kumar Pandey the Supreme Court after convicting the contemner for criminal contempt sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months with the direction that on serving the sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence would stand suspended for a period of two years and might be activated in case the contemner was convicted for any other offence of contempt of Court within the said period. It was further directed that the contemnor would be taken into custody forthwith but would be released after two weeks, to be taken into custody again if and when his remaining sentence would stand activated.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hooghly District Central Co-Operative ... vs Anoj Kumar Roy on 26 June, 1996

5. Mr. Sitaram Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner-respondent No. 1 however, raised a preliminary question that the order under appeal is not appealable. The learned Counsel submits that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashoke Rai v. Ashoke Arora reported in (1991) 96 Cal WN 278 and Ashis Chakrabarty v. Hindusthan Lever Sramik Karmachari Congress reported in (1991) 96 Cal WN 673 have not laid down the correct law in so far as the same is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in, D.N. Taneja v. Bhajanlal reported in 1988 (3) SCC 26.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1