Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Jhareswar Prasad Paul& Anr vs Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors on 8 May, 2002
Decided issues cannot be
reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The
Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No
order or direction supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would
appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at
the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath
Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703], V.M.
Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC
610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907], Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5
SCC 339] and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1
SCC 613]."
Bihar Finance Service H.C. Coop. Soc. ... vs Gautam Goswami & Ors on 5 March, 2008
Decided issues cannot be
reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The
Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No
order or direction supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would
appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at
the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath
Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703], V.M.
Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC
610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907], Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5
SCC 339] and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1
SCC 613]."
Union Of India And Ors vs Subedar Devassy Pv on 10 January, 2006
Decided issues cannot be
reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The
Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No
order or direction supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would
appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at
the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath
Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703], V.M.
Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC
610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907], Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5
SCC 339] and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1
SCC 613]."
J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors on 11 September, 1996
"6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right
in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain,
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the
learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken
by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the
light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge
cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had
wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as
defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the
merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is
well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had
prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently
promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 303/2020 Page 18 of 21
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
20:28:43
list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out
whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the
earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed
by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the
court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in
an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list
may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in
conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause
of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of
judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful
violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in
contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single
Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other
words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to
consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It
would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.
Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under
Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a
judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench
corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an
appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division
Bench."
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
24. The first question that arises is regarding the significance of
the expression "consequential benefits" as used in the Order dated
20-11-2013. The matter which was directly in issue and under
consideration was the correctness and validity of General Court
Martial proceedings. While annulling the findings and effect of such
General Court Martial proceedings, the idea was to confer those
benefits which the officer stood denied directly as a result of
pendency of such proceedings. Such benefits would therefore be
those which are easily quantifiable, namely, those in the nature of
loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits. But the expression
cannot be construed to mean that even promotions which are
strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection must also
stand conferred upon the officer. It is true that as a result of
pendency of the General Court Martial proceedings the respondent
was kept out of service for nearly nine years and as such his profile
would show inadequacy to a certain extent. On the other hand, the
Department was also denied of proper assessment of the profile of
the respondent for those years. The correct approach in the matter is
the one which was considered by this Court in K.D. Gupta v. Union
of India [K.D. Gupta v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 416 :
1989 SCC (L&S) 448] as under : (SCC pp. 420-21, para 8)
"8. The respondents have maintained that the petitioner
has not served in the appropriate grades for the requisite
period and has not possessed the necessary experience and
training and consequential assessment of ability which are a
precondition for promotion. The defence services have their
own peculiarities and special requirements. The considerations
which apply to other government servants in the matter of
promotion cannot as a matter of course be applied to defence
personnel of the petitioner's category and rank. Requisite
experience, consequent exposure and appropriate review are
indispensable for according promotion and the petitioner,
therefore, cannot be given promotions as claimed by him on
the basis that his batchmates have earned such promotions.
Individual capacity and special qualities on the basis of
assessment have to be found but in the case of the petitioner
these are not available. We find force in the stand of the
respondents and do not accept the petitioner's contention that
he can be granted promotion to the higher ranks as claimed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 303/2020 Page 20 of 21
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
20:28:43
him by adopting the promotions obtained by his batchmates as
the measure."
1