Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.25 seconds)J. Vasudevan vs T.R. Dhananjaya on 8 September, 1995
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of J. Vasudevan (supra) clearly laid down that in order to invoke mercy jurisdiction and remission of sentence even if it is impressed on a contemner it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court so that there was sincere and genuine apology. It is observed that it would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow and if mercy is shown in such repeated contempt that the people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. In the present case the contemner No. 2 is a person in the rank of not less than a M.D. and there was an obligation to advance the cause of public interest which requires maintenance of rule of law failing which the contemners are required to be punished.
Mohd. Iqbal Khanday vs Abdul Majid Rather on 16 April, 1994
In the case of Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather the principle laid down is that the apology can be accepted but in order to constitute a good ground for acceptance it must be genuine and bona fide which is lacking in the present case and therefore, said decision does not help, in anyway, to the respondents. It is not possible mathematically or geometrically to show whether there was bona fide or genuine apology or not but it is to be examined and analysed in the light of entire factual scenario. In the present case, we have found that there was no bona fide and genuine apology.
Dinabandhu Sahu vs The State Of Orissa on 17 November, 1971
28. Even the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu v. The State of Orissa does not help for the simple reason that it lays down that an apology which was tendered sincerely accompanied with a request to forgive deserves acceptance. In the present case as observed hereinbefore, we are not satisfied that apology is bona fide and genuine and therefore, said decision is also not applicable in the present case.
Pushpaben & Anr vs Narandas V. Badiani & Anr on 29 March, 1979
30. After having examined the ratio laid down in the case of Pushpaben v. Narandas relied upon by the respondents we have found that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the sentence of imprisonment was not warranted. What should be the quantum and quality of punishment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a universal formula or rigid yardstick. If the contempt is committed the punishment must follow in the light of the gravity of contempt committed.
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Noorali Babul Thanewala vs K.M.M. Shetty And Ors on 20 December, 1989
20. In the Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Para 53, it has been observed a judgment or order against an individual or an undertaking given by an individual may, subject to certain exceptions, be enforced by an order of committal or by a writ of sequestration against individual's property. Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct but the accidental and unintertional disobedience is not sufficient to justify sequestration or committal. Even in the absence of wilful disobedience on the part of contemner civil contempt is constituted. However, it is observed that in such a situation in the absence of wilful disobedience the Court must be satisfied about the fault or misconduct on the part of respondent No. 2 not only in not making payment as promised and assured but even in not recording his presence on different dates. It may be noted that there is no dispute about the breach of undertaking which was accepted by the Court and acted upon by the party will constitute civil contempt. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty has laid down proposition that the breach of undertaking given to the Court by or on behalf of a party to a civil proceedings is, therefore, regarded as tantamount to a breach of injunction although the remedies were not always identical. For the purpose of enforcing an undertaking that undertaking is treated as an order so that an undertaking, if broken, would involve the same consequences on the person breaking that undertaking as would their disobedience to an order for injunction. Therefore, it is true to say that the consent order coupled with the undertaking tendered before the Court accepted by the Court in a Company Petition is nothing but a breach constituting civil contempt under Section 2(b) and resultant punishment under Section 12 of the Act.
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Sadhvi Ritumbhara vs Digvijay Singh & Anr on 17 February, 1997
In the case of Sadhvi Ritumbhara v. Digvijay Singh the unconditional apology of a contemner was accepted, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case proceedings against contemner could not be withdrawn as there was clear case for accepting the apology in the circumstances of the case. Said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case as there are peculiar facts and circumstances as could be seen from the highlights of the case.
1