Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Joseph Kuzhijalil vs Joseph Pulikunnel Alias P.S. Joseph And ... on 18 August, 1999

Jomon Puthenpurackal vs Judicial 1St Class Magistrate-Iii on 17 November, 2003

But in the decision of the Division Bench in Joseph Kuzhijalil's case (supra), that aspect of the matter had been considered by this Court and it was observed that suo motu proceedings can be initiated by the Court for criminal contempt. There was no conscious consideration by the Supreme Court of the question whether when certain facts come to the notice of the Court as a result of somebody filing petition for contempt the Court can initiate suo motu action for criminal contempt. The observation made by the Division Bench of this court that suo motu proceedings can be initiated by the Court for criminal contempt on the basis of the facts which come to the notice of the Court has not been overruled by the Supreme Court in the above decision or any observation has been made by the Supreme Court in the decision contrary to what was held by the Division Bench of this Court on that point.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Padmaja vs Erattil Sajeev on 9 March, 2005

12. The counsel for the petitioner contended that where obstruction is made by third parties to delivery of the property in execution of the decree for delivery, the Court is bound to consider the claims or objections raised by them, in view of the provisions of Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976. Though the execution and registration of the document following a decree for specific performance do not strictly arise in execution, the provisions of Rules 97 to 101 would apply, according to the counsel for the petitioner. It is true that to get the document registered by the judgment debtor, or if he refuses, by the court, no execution petition need be filed. The application can be filed by the decree holder on the original side of the suit as provided under Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act. (See Joseph v. Joseph (1997@@ EEEEEE EEEEEE (1) KLT 663) In such a case, whether objection to the execution of the document or to any other incidental relief that could be granted under Section 22 of the Act, could be made by a third party who claims right, title and interest in respect of the property, is the further question to be considered.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

N.Prakash vs R.Ashakumari on 28 February, 2025

In the light of the emphatic proclamation of the law in Joseph Kuzhijalil's case, an order declining sanction by the learned Advocate General under Section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not justiciable. Therefore, the writ petition has to necessarily fail. Nonetheless, it is clarified that, the dismissal of this writ petition will not fetter the right of the petitioner to prosecute his application for initiating proceedings against the 1st respondent under Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and this Court from deciding whether criminal contempt of court proceeding is to be initiated against the 1st respondent.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Peter Mathew vs Betty John on 10 August, 2001

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the finding of the court below S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case is clearly unsustainable. Relying on the decision of this court reported in Joseph v. Joseph (1981 KLT 902), the learned counsel contended that in construing S. 210(1) the word 'offence' cannot be given the restricted meaning. According to him, the subject matter of the enquiry in both the cases is the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent supported the order and urged that there is no ground for interference.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1