Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki vs Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel on 7 March, 2002

Ram Phal vs Rajwant Pal Singh And Anr on 9 September, 2022

4. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be used for the purpose of execution of any order, decree or award, especially when there is an adequate alternative remedy available therefore. This view is inter alia, fortified by the Division Bench decision of this court rendered in 'Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki versus Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel', reported in (2002) 2 Guj.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B S Walia - Full Document

Uma Shankar vs Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. on 19 April, 2004

It must however, be noted and underscored that the Workman who had invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court in Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki case, (supra) had approached the Court directly, without taking recourse to the procedure for execution of the Awards established under the I.D. Act. This is not the situation in the present case since it is Management which had filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the Award. The Rubicon and distinguishing feature is that the Orders in respect of which the Workman has asserted non-compliance is not the Award, but interim Orders passed by this Court from time-to-time.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - V Sen - Full Document

Vimal Kumar vs Ramesh Negi & Anr. on 1 April, 2011

This Court also relied upon Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki v. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel (2002) II LLJ 1034 Gujarat (DB) and on Abdul Razack Sahib v. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum AIR 1970 CONT.CAS(C) 173/2011 Page 4 of 11 Madras 14 to hold that penal sanctions under the contempt procedure should not be invoked for default of compliance with such orders and that the high function of a Court of Justice proceedings by way of Contempt of Court should not be employed as a legal thumbscrew by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim. It is on the basis of the said principles that this Court held that the contempt petition did not lie. Uma Shankar is thus a precedent on all fours against the maintainability of this petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Gurcharan Singh on 30 March, 2012

Reliance was also placed on Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki Vs. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel (2002) II LLJ 1034 Guj (DB) and on Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum AIR 1970 Mad 14 holding that penal sanctions under the contempt procedure should not be invoked for default of compliance with such orders and that the high function of a Court of Justice proceedings by way of Contempt of Court should not be employed as a legal thumbscrew by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Gurcharan Singh on 30 March, 2012

Reliance was also placed on Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki Vs. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel (2002) II LLJ 1034 Guj (DB) and on Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum AIR 1970 Mad 14 holding that penal sanctions under the contempt procedure should not be invoked for default of compliance with such orders and that the high function of a Court of Justice proceedings by way of Contempt of Court should not be employed as a legal thumbscrew by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next