Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Section 22 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967
Mr. Banerjee has relied on the
decision of "Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar V. Ratilal
Motilal Patel" reported in AIR 1968 SC 372 in support of his
contention that the matter should be referred to the Hon'ble
Chief Justice for constitution of a Special Bench. It is relevant
to point out some portion of paragraph 10 of the said decision
reported in AIR 1968 SC 372, which is as follows: "When it
appears to a Single Judge or a Division Bench that there are
conflicting decisions of the same court, or there are decisions
of other High Courts in India which are strongly persuasive
and take a different view from the view which prevails in his or
their High Court, or that a question of law of importance arises
in the trial of a case, the Judge or the Bench may pass an
order that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of the
High Court with a request to form a Special or Full Bench to
hear and dispose of the case or the questions raised in the
case." In the instant case, I do not find any conflict of
decisions of our High Court. Nor can I persuade myself to
hold that the Single Bench decision of other High Courts,
which are contrary to the decisions of our High Court, are
strongly persuasive for a reference to the Hon'ble Chief Justice
for constitution of a Special Bench. I also do not find that any
important question of law arises in this case for reference to
the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Special Bench. I
fully agree with the two decisions of the Division Bench of our
High Court and hold that if the High Court starts invoking
power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
for wilful violation of the order of injunction granted by the
subordinate courts, in spite of efficacious remedy available
under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
floodgate of such contempt applications will be opened up
before this court, which is already overloaded with litigations.
Section 41 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 November, 1968
In the case of "Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. and another V.
the State of Maharashtra" reported in AIR 1971 SC 221 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an appeal against the order
of imposition of punishment by the Bombay High Court by
invoking contempt jurisdiction of the High Court. In this case
one defamatory article was published in the journal which
amounted to contempt of court. The facts of this reported
case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present
case and as such the ratio of the said decision will not be
applicable in the present case. However, in this case the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the summary
jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great
care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for
the proper administration of law and justice.
The Companies Act, 1956
R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998
In the case of
"Rudraiah V. State of Karnataka" reported in AIR 1982
Karnataka 182, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court has held in paragraph 5 as follows: "In cases of
disobedience or breach of injunction order issued temporarily
during the pendency of a suit, either under Rule 1 or 2 of
Order 39, Civil procedure code, the action is contemplated by
the very court which issues the injunction order under Rule
2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It contemplates
the forfeiture of property as also putting of the person who
commits breach into civil prison for a period not exceeding
three months. The provision thereunder is obviously based on
the principle of contempt of court. That being so, the general
provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be
invoked by the decree holder for forcing the party to obey the
injunction order." Thus, the Division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court has laid down that in case of disobedience or
breach of order of temporary injunction during the pendency
of a suit, it is inexpedient to invoke and exercise the contempt
jurisdiction of the High Court, because in such cases action is
contemplated by the very Court which issues the order of
injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, Delhi vs Mrs. Kamla Mathur, Delhi And Another on 25 May, 1982
In the case of "Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen V.
Mrs. Kamla Mathur" reported in 1983 Cri. L. J. 495 the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court categorically held that the
jurisdiction to punish for disobedience of the order of
injunction vests in the court which granted the injunction.
The High Court has power to punish for contempt of
subordinate courts under Section 10 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, but the said power cannot be invoked for
enforcement of an order of injunction granted by the
subordinate court, as the same does not fall within the ambit
of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
subordinate court can punish the defendant for disobedience
of the order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Division Bench of Delhi
High Court also refused to invoke the power under Section 10
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful violation of the
order of temporary injunction granted by the subordinate
court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.