Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
The Special Courts Act, 1979
Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001
Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Article 129 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Om Prakash Jaiswal vs D.K. Mittal & Anr on 22 February, 2000
.... If the interpretation of Section 20 put in Om Prakash Jaiswal case is correct, it would mean that notwithstanding both the subordinate court and the High Court being prima facie satisfied that contempt has been committed the High Court would become powerless to take any action. On the other hand, if the filing of an application before the subordinate court or the High Court, making of a reference by a subordinate court on its own motion or the filing of an application before an Advocate General for permission to initiate contempt proceedings is regarded as initiation by the court for the purpose of Section 20, then such an interpretation would not impinge on or stultify the power of the High Court to punish for contempt which power, dehors the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is enshrined in Article 215 of the Constitution.
It was also held that such an interpretation of Section 20 would harmonise that section with the powers of the courts to punish for contempt which is recognised by the Constitution.
29 First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year.
Dineshbhai A. Parikh vs Kripalu Co-Operative Housing Society, ... on 1 July, 1980
19 In the case of Dineshbhai A. Parekh v. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarvel Ahmedabad, AIR 1980 Guj. 19 at p.199, the Court held that the pendency of a contempt petition for more than one year after the alleged act of contempt and no notice having been issued even thereafter would not enable this Court to continue to keep the petition pending indefinitely. The jurisdiction of the Court is that the Court shall not initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiration of a period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed.