Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Section 425 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Midnapore Peoples' Co-Operative Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 21 March, 2014
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the exclusively limited from the point that
since impugned order happens to be a dismissal of a contempt and particularly
the ratios as it has been laid down in Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank
Ltd., & Ors. Vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors. in Ajay Kumar Bhalla Vs Prakash
Kumar Dixit matter has considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of
the Judgment which we had an occasion to deal with in the matters of Pankaj
Dhanuka Vs Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, we hold that, as against the
order of dismissal of a contempt petition, the Appeal as prescribed under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would not be maintainable.
Accordingly, the Company Appeals are dismissed, holding that the orders
under the challenge are not appealable orders under Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
Section 425 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Sh. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors vs Prakash Kumar Dixit on 5 October, 2023
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the exclusively limited from the point that
since impugned order happens to be a dismissal of a contempt and particularly
the ratios as it has been laid down in Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank
Ltd., & Ors. Vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors. in Ajay Kumar Bhalla Vs Prakash
Kumar Dixit matter has considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of
the Judgment which we had an occasion to deal with in the matters of Pankaj
Dhanuka Vs Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, we hold that, as against the
order of dismissal of a contempt petition, the Appeal as prescribed under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would not be maintainable.
Accordingly, the Company Appeals are dismissed, holding that the orders
under the challenge are not appealable orders under Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
Baradakanta Mishra vs Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra on 21 June, 1974
"4. It is well known that contempt proceeding is not a dispute
between two parties, the proceeding is primarily between the court
and the person who is alleged to have committed the contempt of
court. The person who informs the court or brings to the notice of
the court that anyone has committed contempt of such court is not
in the position of a prosecutor, he is simply assisting the court so
that the dignity and the majesty of the court is maintained and
upheld. It is for the court, which initiates the proceeding to decide
whether the person against whom such proceeding has been initiated
should be punished or discharged taking into consideration the facts
and circumstances of the particular case. This Court in the case of
Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa
H.C. [(1975) 3 SCC 535: 1975 SCC (Cri) 99 : AIR 1974 SC 2255 :