Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
Shikhil Mehra vs Gnctd on 13 April, 2023 cites

The State Of Bihar vs Rani Sonabati Kumari on 20 September, 1960

In the case of State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that, a party proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions are satisfied viz., (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of-fact, and where the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions, for the only reason, that 24 OA No. 11/2023 and batch ingenuity of Counsel can discover equivocation in the order which is the subject of enforcement. Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive aspect - as is evident from the contemnor being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to affect the enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the State Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to be detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations; for which special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but beyond that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is executed and when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the liability of the State Government to be proceeded against appears to us clear.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 169 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003

"14. Section 25G requires the employer to "ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in a particular category of workman unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman". This "last come first go" rule predicates (1) that the workman retrenched belongs to a particular category (2) that there was no agreement to the contrary and (3) that the employer had not recorded any reasons for not following the principle. These are all questions of fact in respect of which evidence would have to be led, the onus to prove the first requirement being on the workman and the second and third requirements on the 25 OA No. 11/2023 and batch employer. Necessarily a fair opportunity of leading such evidence must be available to both parties. This would in turn entail laying of a foundation for the case in the pleadings. If the plea is not put forward such an opportunity is denied, quite apart from the principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into unless such a plea is raised. [See Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran; Bondar Singh and Ors. v. Nihal Singh and Ors."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 320 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next