Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)C.Elumalai & Ors vs A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr on 20 March, 2009
The
Apex Court in the case of Elumalai (supra) held that there must
be a willful disobedience.
Manipal Academy Of Health And Education vs Manipal Academy Of Higher Education on 6 December, 2022
13. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of T. SUDHAKAR PAI AND OTHERS v.
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION reported in
2023 SCC Online Kar 41, wherein for the offence punishable
under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC ,imposed civil imprisonment for
three months and held liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
as compensation to the plaintiff.
Sita Ram vs Balbir @ Bali on 15 December, 2016
14. This Court would also like to refer to the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of SITA RAM v. BALBIR reported in
(2017) 2 SCC 465, wherein it is held that the Courts have the
power to punish the person who willfully violates the Court order
despite being aware of the Court order, though such a person is
not a party to the proceeding which passed the order. It is
important to note that the Court while imposing the punishment
has to take note of the proportionality.
Samee Khan vs Bindu Khan on 1 September, 1998
15. This Court would also like to rely upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of SAMEE KHAN v. BINDU KHAN
reported in (1999) 7 SCC 59, wherein it is held that the Court
has the power to order attachment as well as civil imprisonment
simultaneously.
Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr vs Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors on 21 July, 2008
The Apex Court in the case of PATEL
11
RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI AND ANOTHER v. PATEL
CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI AND OTHERS reported in
(2008) 14 SCC 561, in paragraph No.77 has held that the so-
called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret. It
has been tendered as a "tactful move" when the contemnors are
in the right corner and with a view to ward off the Court.
Acceptance of such apology in the case on hand would be
allowing the contemnors to go away with impunity after
committing gross contempt of Court.
U.C. Surendranath vs Mamballys Bakery on 22 July, 2019
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, it is not in dispute that the respondents filed a suit
seeking the relief of partition and interalia sought for the relief of
temporary injunction. It is also not in dispute that the Trial
Court passed an order on 09.01.2002 restraining defendant
Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties till their
filing of objections to I.A.No.1. It is not in dispute that
objections to I.A.No.1 was filed on 02.08.2003 and before that
9
the property was sold on 10.10.2002 in favour of one Sri B.K.
Srinath by this appellant. Though the grounds are urged in the
appeal memo, the learned counsel for the appellant argued only
on humanitarian ground relying upon the judgments referred
supra. No doubt, the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of
Surendrananth (supra) held that there must be willful
disobedience of the orders passed by the Court.
Nathabhai Dharamshi Jadav vs Yashomati Ravishankar on 31 July, 2013
In the
judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nathabhai
Dharamshi Jadav (supra), it is held that it is interse between
the contemnor and the Court and the Court can pass such orders
to impose a deterrent effect on the wrong doers. In paragraph
No.13 it is held that when the wrong cannot be undone,
sentence of prison may not completely serve the ends of justice,
but instead payment of compensation would serve the ends of
justice and condoned the imprisonment of one month and
instead imposed heavy fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
1