Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Shri Timirendu Bhowmik vs Smt. Kanika Nath(Bhaumik) on 11 December, 2025 cites

State Of J&K; vs Mohammad Yaqoob Baba And Others on 12 April, 2017

"4. Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself as proper. If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge's order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal, But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice. This is the view taken in State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - M Mir - Full Document

Mohammad Idris And Anr. vs Rustam Jehangir Babuji And Ors. on 22 August, 1984

In the case of Md. Idris and Anr. Vs. Rustam Jehangir Bapuji and Ors, (1984) 4 SCC 216: Air 1984 SC 1826 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the powers of the High Court held that the Court must justify in giving appropriate directions to close the breach of an undertaking, in addition to punish the party for contempt of court. As we have already held that Smt. Kanika Nath (Bhaumik), the respondent-contemnor is evading herself from performing her part of undertaking, i.e. to transfer the properties which are in her name, in favour of her two daughters named above by way of gift deed, in this circumstance, we are constrained to direct the Registrar Judicial, High court of Tripura to execute and register the gift deed in favour of her two daughters i.e. the properties of Kanika Nath (Bhaumik) situated at Agartala in the name of Smt. Saheli Bhaumik and her share over the flat situated in Prince Anwar Shah Road in Kolkata in favour of Smt. Sreyashee Bhaumik. It is pertinent to mention herein that the husband, Sri Timirendu Bhowmik has purchased the requisite stamps for Agartala property for execution and registration of the gift deed in favour of Smt. Saheli Bhaumik. Therefore, it is directed that the execution and registration of the gift deed for the property situated at Agartala shall be completed within a period of 7(seven) days from today.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Asit Kumar Das vs J. Panda, The Chief Post Master General on 22 January, 2015

24. Referring to the above-mentioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asit Kumar Das (supra), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that mere approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not operate as an embargo on contempt proceedings unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes cognizance and grants an interim stay of proceedings pending before the High Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1