Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Baradakanta Mishra,Ex-Commissioner ... vs Bhimsen Dixit on 29 September, 1972
"15-16.The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior courts disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & Another vs Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited ... on 19 February, 1997
9.Mr.Thorat, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the roznama maintained by Respondent No.2 does not give a true picture of what had transpired in the Court. He submits that the tampering with the roznama is evident as the roznama for 2nd May 2002 has three entries all in different handwritings which is not usual. The roznama for 6th May 2002 shows that the matter was adjourned for 18th May 2002 at 3.00 p.m. on which date parties were present. The roznama for 18th May 2002, according to the learned Counsel, has wrongly been recorded as the Advocates appearing for the Petitioners had left by 3.00 p.m. and no consent was obtained from the Advocate and it was for this reason that Respondent No.2 had accepted the affidavit by the Petitioners on 15th June 2002 opposing the issuance of witness summons. He submits that the person who consented to issuance of witness summons was the junior of the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners who was in no way concerned with the matter as he was neither the Advocate on record nor was he briefed in the matter. He further relies on the judgments in Pratap Singh and another vs. Gurbaksh Singh, , Shri Baradakant Mishra vs. Shri Bhimsel Dixit, , Tayyabbhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwalla and another vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (2) Mh.L.J.1, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Ms.Manisha Koirala and another, 2002 All.MR (Cri) 2465, Sessions Judge, Meerut vs. P.S.Fanthome, City Magistrate Meerut, in support of his contention that the lower judiciary must obey the orders passed by this Court and maintain the dignity of the Court and its majesty.
Vishal Jeet vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 May, 1990
The reliance placed on the judgments in the case of Bombay Environment and Vishal Jeet (supra) is misplaced.
Rizwan-Ul-Hasan And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 February, 1953
24.There is no doubt that the law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Rizwan-Ul-Hasan (supra) cited by Mr.Sawant is clear that the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is a real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. The Apex Court has also observed that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. However, the Apex Court has categorised three different categories of contempt known to law being as under :
Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962
23.In Pratap Singh (supra), the Apex Court considered whether issuance of a Government Circular stating that it is improper for a Government servant to take recourse to the Court of law before exhausting normal official channels of redress was a contemptuous act on the part of the officers who were acting on that Circular. The Apex Court while considering what is Contempt of Court, quoted from Oswalds Contempt of Court, 3rd Edition, page 6 as under:-
Section 351 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 354A in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
S.S. Roy vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 May, 1954
25.In the present case, there is no manner of doubt that Contemnor No.2 had acted in a manner to interfere with the due course of justice by coming to the conclusion that all articles belonging to the Petitioners which encroached in an area beyond 282 sq.ft. should be removed. Mr.Sawants attempt to suggest by relying on S.S.Roy (supra) that Contemnor No.2 was not actuated by any corrupt or dishonest motive cannot be accepted for the reasons aforestated.