Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.50 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
R. Lakshmipathy vs Madras Gymkhana Club, By Its President on 19 July, 1996
32.On evaluation of Trial Court?s order of Injunction in the light of
factum that petitioners established themselves to be the members of dioceses
and that they were neither served nor communicated with regard to their
alleged default nor there was specific order nor an order of excommunication,
are liable to be included in the voters list, this Court finds no infirmity
or irregularity at the Interlocutory stage of the suit. Though in this regard
reliance was made by the respondents over paragraph 5 of a decision of this
court reported in 1997 (1) CTC 77, in the matter of R.Lakshmipathy Vs Madras
Gymkhana Club, the same is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances in the
case on hand, since in the matter referred above there was a notice of demand
and in spite of the same there was no payment was made towards subscription.
Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors on 30 April, 2008
33.Thus this Court having considered the relief sought for by the
petitioners and the balance of convenience and that even in case of success
in the present Civil Revision Petition, but after conduction of election for
the year 2018 would be nought resulting in severe, irreparable loss to the
petitioners granted an Interim Injunction dated 14.06.2018. It is noteworthy
to mention that the above celebrated principles involving granting of
injunction is emphasised by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the matter of Mandali
Ranganna and others vs T.Ramachandra and others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 398
vide para-18.
Shri Subodh Gopal Bose vs Dalmia Jain &. Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 19 September, 1950
40.In this regard it would be relevant to look into the decision of the
Hon?ble Patna High Court reported in Shri Subodh Copal v. Dalmia Jain and
Co., Ltd., reported in AIR 1951 Pat 266, holding that a party to an order of
injunction cannot, with impunity, disobey the order by assuming or taking a
different capacity, in respect of the act or acts which constitute a breach
of the order of injunction.
South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Arun Kumar Sharma 20 Wps/1737/2018 Smt. ... on 18 April, 2018
The judgment of the Privy Council in Eastern Trust Co. Vs. Makenzie Mann &
Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1915 PC 106, holding that "An injunction, although
subsequently discharged because the plaintiff's case failed, must be obeyed
while it lasts...."
Gobinda Parida And Ors. vs Chakradhara Routray And Ors. on 12 January, 1970
The judgment of the Hon?ble Orissa High Court in the matter of Gobinda v.
Chakradhara, reported in AIR 1971 Orissa 10 that the Court is concerned only
with the question whether there was disobedience of the order of injunction
and not with the ultimate decision in the matter.
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
In this regard it would
be useful to look into the decision of Hon?ble Rajasthan High Court made in
the matter of Sharma v. C.S.Bansal reported in 1993 (1) WLC (Raj.) 338
holding that unconditional apology which lacks bonafides, cannot be accepted.
Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr vs Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors on 21 July, 2008
46.Ultimately in the context of wilful disobedience of an order of a
Court and the consequences thereon, it is fundamental to quote a renowned
decision of the Hon?ble Apex Court having extensively dealt with all the
relevant provisions and nook and corners in this regard, in the matter of
Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & ANR Vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors.
Reported in [2008] INSC 1195 holding as following that
?52.In the celebrated decision of Attorney General v. Times Newspaper
Ltd.; 1974 AC 273 :
Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002
In Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21,
this Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the
statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of
justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and
not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such
order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a
situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of
mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not
be a permissible defence. It was observed that power to punish a person for
contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of Judiciary but that
by itself operates as a string of caution and cannot be used unless the
Court is satisfied beyond doubt that the person has deliberately and
intentionally violated the order of the Court. The power under the Act must
be exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger
interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery
system. Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a person guilty
of civil contempt. The element of willingness is an indispensable requirement
to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act.