Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.51 seconds)
Shyamal Krishna Chakraborty vs Sukumar Das And Ors. on 27 July, 2001 cites

Dineshbhai A. Parikh vs Kripalu Co-Operative Housing Society, ... on 1 July, 1980

99. For the aforesaid view which this Court has taken on interpretation of Section 20 of CCA, this Court is of the opinion that Section 20 of CCA has not been correctly interpreted in the following cases and the ratio of the following decisions is not approved : (a) Hari Nandan Agarwal v. S. N. Padita, , (b) Gulab Singh v. The Principal, Sri Ramji Das, , (c) Dineshbhai A. Parikh v. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society and (d) N. Venkataramanappa v. D. K. Naikar, .
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 78 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

A. Mayilswami vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 July, 1995

This Court, however, approves the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Begunkodar High School v. Samarendra Bondopadhyay reported in (1996) 2 Cal LJ 349 and also approves the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nallamala Venkateswara Rao v. P. Prabhakar and the Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of A. Mayilswami v. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Cri LJ 3830.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

N. Venkataramanappa vs D.K. Naikar And Anr. on 7 November, 1977

99. For the aforesaid view which this Court has taken on interpretation of Section 20 of CCA, this Court is of the opinion that Section 20 of CCA has not been correctly interpreted in the following cases and the ratio of the following decisions is not approved : (a) Hari Nandan Agarwal v. S. N. Padita, , (b) Gulab Singh v. The Principal, Sri Ramji Das, , (c) Dineshbhai A. Parikh v. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society and (d) N. Venkataramanappa v. D. K. Naikar, .
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Gulab Singh And Anr. vs The Principal, Sri Ramji Das on 24 January, 1975

99. For the aforesaid view which this Court has taken on interpretation of Section 20 of CCA, this Court is of the opinion that Section 20 of CCA has not been correctly interpreted in the following cases and the ratio of the following decisions is not approved : (a) Hari Nandan Agarwal v. S. N. Padita, , (b) Gulab Singh v. The Principal, Sri Ramji Das, , (c) Dineshbhai A. Parikh v. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society and (d) N. Venkataramanappa v. D. K. Naikar, .
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Pritam Pal vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Jabalpur ... on 19 February, 1992

In para 5 of the said judgment the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pritam Pal (1992 Cri LJ 1269) (supra), held that the period of one year mentioned in Section 20 of the CCA is not applicable to a case where contempt proceeding was initiated for disobedience of an order of the High Court. The learned Judge has also held that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is unfettered and the time limit specified in Section 20 of CCA cannot apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 114 - S R Pandian - Full Document

T. Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 13 December, 2000

88. It is clear in this case that the decision of Supreme Court in Om Prakash on the jurisdiction of High Court vis-a-vis Section 20 of the CCA was not rendered after considering the effect of Article 215 on the power of a High Court as a Court of Record in matters of contempt jurisdiction. In the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court of a larger Bench it has held that the provisions of CCA cannot limit or regulate the exercise of contempt jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 215. Therefore, the decision in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1700) (SC) (supra) must yield to the subsequent well considered and larger Bench decision in T. Sudhakar Prasad (2000 AIR SCW 4611) (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 88 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

High Court Of Karnataka vs Y.K. Subbanna And Ors. on 23 November, 1989

In sup-, port of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel very much relied on the Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of High Court of Karnataka v. Y. K. Subanna, reported in 1990 Cri LJ 1159. The learned Counsel relied on para 91 of the said judgment wherein the learned Judges of Karnataka High Court held that the Court is of the view that Section 20 of CCA does not derogate from the power vested in every High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution and the inherent power of the High Court can be exercised in all its ambit and scope within a period of one year prescribed by Section 20. The learned Counsel also relied on para 102 of the said judgment in order to contend that the period of limitation provided in Section 20 is applicable to contempt proceedings in High Court and any contempt petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 20 of the CCA 1971 cannot be entertained.
Karnataka High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

S.J.G.M. High School vs The Director Of School Education ... on 14 July, 1995

65. The learned Counsel also relied on a Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. J. G. M. High School v. The Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1996 Cri LJ 699. In that judgment reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on para 14 in order to urge that the Court issued notice before admission of the matter but the said notice does not come within the meaning of initiation of the proceeding by the Court. Since one year has elapsed before the proceedings have been initiated, the contempt proceeding must fail.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - S S Hussaini - Full Document
1   2 3 Next