Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (3.34 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
The State Of Bihar vs Rani Sonabati Kumari on 20 September, 1960
In three decisions of this court in Hari Parshad v. Khilla Ram 1974 Pun LJ (Cri) 71, Janak Raj v. Ganesh Das Puri 1975 Pun LJ (Cri) 39 and M/s. Bharaj Manufacturing Co.'s case (1980-82 Pun LR 406) (supra), the view similar to the one taken in the case of Calcutta Medical Stores was expressed and the court declined to entertain a petition under Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that equally efficacious remedy was available under O, 39, C.P.C. In none of the decisions of this court or the ones noticed above, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rani Sonabai Kumari's case (AIR 1961 SC 221) (supra) were taken notice of. The matter came up for direct consideration before S. C. Mathur, J. of Allahabad High Court in Sheo Kumar Saxena v. Zila Sakhari Vikas Sangh Gonda AIR 1983 All 180 who relying on the said Supreme Court decision held that after a temporary injunction has been vacated, it cannot be enforced or executed and, therefore, punitive action also cannot be taken after its vacation. We full endorse this view and hold that no proceedings can be initiated or action taken under Rule 2-A against a person guilty of disobedience or breach of ad interim injunction after it has been vacated. Nothing said herein before, however, would debar the taking or proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act in spite of the vacation of the ad interim injunction against the person guilty of its breach during the period it remains in force.
Thakorlal Parshottamdas vs Chandulal Chunilal on 6 July, 1966
5. The learned counsel for the respondent to advocate the contrary view relied on Thakorlal Parshottam Das v. Chandulal Chunilal, AIR 1967 Gujarat 124, Gobinda Parida v. Chakradhara Routrary AIR 1971 Orissa 10 and Calcutta Medical Stores v. Stadmed Private Ltd. (1977) 81 Cal 209. In Thakorlal Parshottamdas and Gobinda Parida's cases (supra), the injunction was still in force when the action against its disobedience was taken. In the case of Calcutta Medical Stores, the only question before the court was whether the High Court would entertain a petition for contempt in the presence of adequate provisions contained in O. 39 for the enforcement of the injunction. The question at hand was neither raised nor debated there.
Gobinda Parida And Ors. vs Chakradhara Routray And Ors. on 12 January, 1970
5. The learned counsel for the respondent to advocate the contrary view relied on Thakorlal Parshottam Das v. Chandulal Chunilal, AIR 1967 Gujarat 124, Gobinda Parida v. Chakradhara Routrary AIR 1971 Orissa 10 and Calcutta Medical Stores v. Stadmed Private Ltd. (1977) 81 Cal 209. In Thakorlal Parshottamdas and Gobinda Parida's cases (supra), the injunction was still in force when the action against its disobedience was taken. In the case of Calcutta Medical Stores, the only question before the court was whether the High Court would entertain a petition for contempt in the presence of adequate provisions contained in O. 39 for the enforcement of the injunction. The question at hand was neither raised nor debated there.
1