Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Prithawi Nath Ram vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 24 August, 2004
13. It is relevant to refer at this juncture the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in PRITHAWI NATH RAM V. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS (2004 (7) SCC 261) wherein the Apex Court has held that while dealing with the application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. If any party is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. The Court seized of the Contempt Application cannot traverse beyond the order.
Niaz Mohammad vs Statee Of Harayana on 20 September, 1994
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the Contempt Proceedings in NIAZ MOHAMMAD V. STATE OF HARYANA (1994 (6) SCC 332) in paragraph 9 thereof has held that the party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the court may not punish the alleged contemner.(emphasis added)
N. Palaniammal vs Antony Jayaraj on 30 June, 2006
12. The chain of events indicated above goes without saying that the respondent department having seized of the matter from 1994 though after imposing punishment of stoppage of increment in 1998 kept quite for 11 years without taking any decision. However, when the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.4.2009 again without allowing the petitioner to retire peacefully allowed the petitioner to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. At this juncture, when the matter was pending on the file of this Court, though the notices were served on the respondents, the TALCO-4th respondent in the writ petition failed to file their reply in the main Writ Petition. More so, TALCO-the 4th respondent in the writ and the 2nd respondent herein did not even care to file even Vakalatnama by engaging any counsel to defend their case. Therefore, this Court on the basis of the pleadings by perusing the resolution passed by the Khadi Board in its 75th meeting held on 28.12.1989 stating that the Board resolved to inflict the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and the same Board further resolved to regularise the period of suspension as on duty by further taking note of the fact that the petitioner already retired from service with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and when the Khadi Board-the third respondent therein had already taken a decision to regularise the period of suspension as on duty, this Court finally allowed the Writ Petition only on the basis of the earlier decision taken by the Khadi Board-third respondent in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, when this Court has finally given a quietus to the matter, that too, on the strength and the decision taken by the Khadi Board-third respondent, it is no longer open to the respondents to complain that the order is without adverting to any other relevant material documents. The order passed by this Court is required to be implemented in letter and spirit. This is what has been held by this Court in a judgment rendered in PALANIAMMAL,N. v. ANTONY JAYARAJ
(2006 (5) CTC 224) and the same is extracted hereunder:
1