Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Baradakanta Mishra vs Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra on 21 June, 1974
In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief
Justice of the Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2255, and the judgment
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Mahmood v. A.
Ramalakshman, 1995-CrLJ 1106.
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
Mohd. Mahmood And Ors. vs A. Ramalakshman on 26 October, 1994
In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief
Justice of the Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2255, and the judgment
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Mahmood v. A.
Ramalakshman, 1995-CrLJ 1106.
Hooghly District Central Co-Operative ... vs Anoj Kumar Roy on 26 June, 1996
Even in the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anoj
Kumar Roy (supra), though the Court had not punished the contemnor
for contempt but had issued certain directions in exercise of its
jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, resultantly such order
was held to be appealable. Referring to the second Baradakanta
Mishra's
case reported in AIR 1976 SC 1206, the Court noticed that
unless those orders or decisions in which some points are decided or
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:30 :::
12
findings are given in exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court to
punish the contemnor under Section 19 of the Act and further
referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Idrish's
case
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1826, it observed that it is therefore
absolutely clear that once the Court exercises its jurisdiction and
passes some order by way of or in lieu of punishment whether the
said order is remedial or not would come within the purview of the
words "Orders or decision" as engrafted in Section 19(1) of the Act.
1