Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 793 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors on 11 September, 1996

M.S. Pandit And Anr. vs S.K. Koul And Ors. on 22 April, 2004

19. We do not wish to make any comment on merit of the pleas of the appellants. The judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 23-11-2000 in SWP No. 934/ 1995 and connected cases has attained finality with the dismissal of the letters patent appeal, and the special leave petition by the Supreme Court. Whether, and if so to what extent, the appellants have contributed to non-implementation of the Court's order is for the learned single Judge to consider at the first instance. As observed above, the main plea of the appellants that without any recommendation by the Selection Body they could not appoint the respondents, does not appear to have been raised before the learned single Judge. Further, whether the case comes within the ambit of the decision/ observations in the case of J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (supra), is also to be considered by the learned single Judge at the first instance. The appellants, as seen above, have been asked to submit show cause why they be not punished for violation of the Court's order. It is open to them to satisfy the leaned single Judge that there was/is no willful disobedience of the Court's order by them. Since no final decision has been taken by the learned single Judge to punish the appellants for committing contempt of Court, the appeal, in our opinion, is not maintainable.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lal Bahadur Chaudhary Aged About 52 ... vs Sri H.K. Jaggi on 18 December, 2013

 As already noted hereinabove, this contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of the writ court dated 10.12.1997 by which the writ court had directed to consider the case of the applicant with regard to his appointment. The contempt court after perusing the order dated 11.7.1997, though had disapproved the decision taken by the opposite party, had directed vide order dated 10.12.1997, to reconsider the case of the applicant after taking into consideration different aspect which are mentioned in the order itself. By the order dated 17.12.2002, the opposite party has considered all the aspects mentioned in the order dated 10.12.1997. Counsel for the applicant has urged that the order dated 17.12.2002 is neither legally nor factually correct. It may be so, but it is well settled that the contempt court can neither sit in appeal nor examine the correctness of a resultant order. The Apex Court in Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheshwara Rao, (2000) 10 SCC 285 and J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291, has held that correctness of an order passed by a statutory authority on the directions of the writ court cannot be examined under the contempt jurisdiction. No doubt the resultant order may give rise to a fresh cause of action. In the case of Shail Raj Kishore , Secretary, Education Basic, U.P. Lucknow and others 2004 (3) AWC 2444 this court has held as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006

10.5) J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (supra) is nearest to this case, on facts. A contempt petition was filed alleging that the seniority list drawn pursuant to the order of the High Court was not in conformity with the said order. The High Court found it to be so, but held that the disobedience was not willful and, therefore, did not punish for contempt. But the High Court gave a direction to redraw the seniority list. The State Government challenged the said direction in an intra court appeal. The Division Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable under section 19 of the CC Act, but was maintainable as an intra-court appeal as the direction issued by the single Judge would be a "judgment" within the meaning of that expression in section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to re-do the list. The said order was challenged before this Court. This Court confirmed the decision of the Division Bench and held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 242 - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Rajput vs Dharmendra Chief Secretary & Ors Gnctd on 27 May, 2025

32. For all the reasons and in view of the decision taken by the respondents vide speaking order dated 16.04.2025 and the principles enunciated in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision of three judge bench in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others (supra), we do not find any merit in the present contempt petition, consequently the same is dismissed and notice issued against the respondents are discharged with liberty to the applicants to assail the correctness of the order dated 16.04.2025 in accordance with law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Gupta S/O Mr. P C Gupta vs Mr. Rakesh Garg on 2 March, 2015

J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, [1996 (6) SCC 291] 6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next