Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Papanna vs Nagachari And Others on 20 February, 1996

Smt. Jagannathiya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 May, 2006

9. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that the proceedings are analogous to the contempt of court proceedings but they are taken under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. for the reason that the special provision inserted in the Code shall prevail over the general law of contempt contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act, 1971"). Even the High Court, in such a case, shall not entertain the petition under the provisions of Act, 1971. (Vide Ram Rup Pandey v. R.K. Bhargava and Ors. ; Smt. Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Ors. ; Rudraiah Company v. State of Kamataka and Ors. ; Papanna v. Nagachari AIR 1996 Kant 256 and Smt. Savitrt Devi v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Gorakhpur 2003 (3) AWC 1718 : (2003) 6 AIC 749 (All).
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Priyag Chand vs Laxmi Devi And Others on 7 April, 2010

Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. Jaggar Singh 2001(3) CCC 397 (P&H), Smt. Charubala Dev Nath v. Shri Niranjan Pathak AIR 1993 Calcutta 288, Papanna v. Nagachari and others AIR 1996 Karnataka 256, P. Shanker Rao v. Smt. B. Susheela AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 214, Gram Panchayat, Daroli Jat v. Smt. Lokesh Devi & others 1999 (Suppl.) CCC 371 to contend that for implementation of ad interim injunction, police help can be granted in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

Rudrrappa S/O Layappa @ Harijan vs Riyaz Ahmed S/O Ibrahimsab Mamadapur & ... on 1 June, 2016

9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the Trial Court is prevented from issuing any direction to the police for implementing the temporary injunction order. Such contention is belied by judgments of this Court in the case of Papanna (Supra) and in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma and Others (Supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Ratan Lal @ Pinki vs Vasdev on 13 September, 2017

9.   Ld.   Counsel   for   respondent   has   cited  Papanna   v. Nagachari, AIR 1996 Karnataka 256 wherein it is held that "the mere fact that there is provision U/o 39 rule 2A CPC for taking action   for   disobedience   of   an   order   of   temporary   injunction, does not prevent the court from taking steps to see that its order are implemented.   If the court had no power to implement its own   orders,   then   there   is   no   purpose   in   the   courts   passing orders in matters coming before them.  The remedy under order 39 rule 2A is not  exhaustive  and court  can pass  appropriate orders to see that its orders are enforced.  In necessary cases, even   the   police   can  be   directed  to   enforce   the   orders   of   the court.  In this case that alone has been done by the trial court and   I   do   not   find   any   error   of   jurisdiction   warranting interference U/s 151 of CPC."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next