Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Dulal Chandra Bhar And Ors. vs Sukumar Banerjee And Ors. on 2 April, 1958
"We are not unmindful of the division bench decision of this court in Dulal Ch. Bhar & Ors. v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta & Ors. v. B.K. Sen, , and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1995(1) CHN 166, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris & Anr. v. Rustam Jahangir Bapuji & Ors. and Noorali Babu Thanewala. v. Sh. K.M.M. Setty & Ors. wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application the court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its order. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemner. if found guilty of Contempt of Court."
Saibal Kumar Gupta And Others vs B. K. Sen And Another on 13 January, 1961
As in Ratan Kumar Saha's case (1997)1 Cal LJ 501, the division bench of this court had not taken into consideration the provision of Rules 8 and 9, the said decision must be held to have been passed sub-silentio and is not binding on this Bench."
Mohammad Idris And Anr vs Rustam Jahangir Babuji And Others on 27 August, 1984
"We are not unmindful of the division bench decision of this court in Dulal Ch. Bhar & Ors. v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta & Ors. v. B.K. Sen, , and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1995(1) CHN 166, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris & Anr. v. Rustam Jahangir Bapuji & Ors. and Noorali Babu Thanewala. v. Sh. K.M.M. Setty & Ors. wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application the court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its order. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemner. if found guilty of Contempt of Court."
Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 September, 1994
In Niaz Mohammad & Ors. v. 'State of Haryana & Ors. , the law is stated in the following terms:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Mohd. Iqbal Khanday vs Abdul Majid Rather on 16 April, 1994
In Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v Abdul Majid Rather , the apex court stated the law in the following terms:
Pallav Goswami vs Smt. Ava Rani Sinha on 3 August, 1995
In Pallav Goswami v. Ava Rani Sinha reported in 100 CWN 20 pages 27 and 28. it is stated:
Sunil Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 3 February, 1995
"We are not unmindful of the division bench decision of this court in Dulal Ch. Bhar & Ors. v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta & Ors. v. B.K. Sen, , and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 1995(1) CHN 166, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris & Anr. v. Rustam Jahangir Bapuji & Ors. and Noorali Babu Thanewala. v. Sh. K.M.M. Setty & Ors. wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application the court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its order. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemner. if found guilty of Contempt of Court."
1