Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.59 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Smt. Indu Tewari vs Ram Bahadur Chaudhari And Ors. on 7 May, 1981
In Smt. Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Choudhary, 1981 AWC 521 it has been held that under such circumstances it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act when such an effective and alternative remedy is available to any person.
Food Corporation Of India vs Sukh Prasad on 24 March, 2009
In the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad 2009(3) SC 2330 and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power exercised by a Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and such powers are to be exercised with great caution and responsibility and in case a final order order the decree lies in execution and not in an action of contempt or disobedience and in case of breach of temporary injunction, the remedy is available under Order XXXIX Rule 2A which is punitive nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under 1971 Act.
Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court Of Delhi on 23 September, 2011
In the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad 2009(3) SC 2330 and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power exercised by a Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and such powers are to be exercised with great caution and responsibility and in case a final order order the decree lies in execution and not in an action of contempt or disobedience and in case of breach of temporary injunction, the remedy is available under Order XXXIX Rule 2A which is punitive nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under 1971 Act.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 10 in The Delimitation Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Ram Rup Pandey vs R.K. Bhargava And Ors. on 29 January, 1970
As opposed to this this, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are of summary nature. In my opinion, a person who has got an effective alternative remedy of the nature specified under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A or under Order XXI, Rule 32, Civil P.C.should not be permitted to skip over that remedy and take resort to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The least that can be said is that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act when such an effective and alternative remedy is available to any person. I am fortified in taking this view by the observations made in Ram Rup Pandey v. R.K. Bhargava, (AIR 1971 All 231) and Calcutta Medical Stores v. Stadmed Private Ltd., ((1977) 81 Cal WN 209).