Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Shankar Lal Sharma vs M.S. Bisht on 17 October, 1955

Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962

The case reported as Shankar Lal Sharma v. M. S. Bisht(2) does go against the appellants. I however do not agree with the conclusion in that case that the calling for an explanation from the employee as to why he had submitted a writ application in the High Court, in contravention of certain directions contained in the Government Circular of 1952, was an attempt to hold out a threat of Departmental action against him in order to induce him to withdraw the application he had presented for the protection of his rights under the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 33 - S K Das - Full Document

Akhtar Ali vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 February, 2026

In Shankar Lal Sharma v. M.S. Bisht in very similar circumstances it was held by the Allahabad High Court that if any kind of threat or any action which may amount to a threat is held out to a person who has approached the civil courts for a redress of his grievances, with a view to induce him to forego the assistance of the civil courts, the action amounts to a contempt of court. In that case also an employee of the Public Works Department of Uttar Pradesh moved the High Court for the grant of a writ. While the writ petition was pending in the High Court the Chief Engineer, PWD., U.P., purporting to act in accordance with certain directions contained in a circular letter asked for an explanation from the employee as to why he has submitted a writ application to the High Court. The learned Judges expressed the view that there was no doubt that the action taken by the Chief Engineer in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular letter amounted to a threat with a view to induce the employee to forego the assistance of the civil courts. An unqualified apology having been tendered in the case, no further action was taken.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijai Pratap Singh vs Ajit Prasad And Ors. on 20 September, 1965

It may be mentioned here that their Lordships of the Supreme Court fully approved the decision of this Court in Shankar Lal Sharma v. M. S. Bisht, AIR 1956 All 160, in which in the circumstances more or less similar to those in Pratap Singh's case, AIR 1962 SC 1172, this Court had expressed the view that even though the action against the employee had been taken in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular letter, it amounted to a threat, with a view to induce the employee to forego the assistance of the Civil Courts and, therefore contempt of Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Asoke Kumar Sarkar And Anr. vs Radha Kanto Pandey And Ors. on 28 February, 1966

25. These cases however, are concerned with the administration of justice by the Courts on one side and departmental enquiries and departmental justice on the other. The principle laid down in these decisions and by these authorities is simple. That principle is that administration of justice by the Courts cannot be interfered with by any other agencies, departmental or otherwise and if there is such interference that is contempt of Court. No such question arises in this case. It is not a case of departmental inquiry in this case. If at all. it is a case of Court v. Court. If at all, it is a case of criminal justice as against civil justice. That principle therefore, cannot apply. Justice through the Courts in its essential nature is one and indivisible. It does not matter in which Court that justice is being administered whether in Courts of criminal law or whether in Courts of civil law. The solicitor's letter in this case did not interfere, in fact or theory or even tend to interfere with any administration of criminal justice not only because it did not refer to any pending criminal proceeding under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, out also because all that it asked for was an apology which could have been answered by saying that either no apology would be given or that no answer would be given because of the pending criminal proceeding. There was therefore, no pressure on the administration of justice and no threat or coercion. Indeed, to accept the argument of Mr. Dutt for the petitioners would be to produce an ironical result that the very fact that his clients as petitioners are pursuing this Rule in contempt even after the civil suit for damages has been filed, is itself a contempt of the civil suit for damages now pending in this Court. That is why justice is said to be one and indivisible, civil or criminal and nothing should be done Lo put up a competition between the two at least on the basis of contempt of Court. To do that, will make the Courts face the insoluble situation of contempt of criminal Court as against the contempt of civil Court and it will be hard to resolve such a conflict between the two.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1