Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc on 11 September, 1991
In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 191 (4) SCC 406. I have no doubt that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power in respect of contempt of itself as well as of its subordinate courts. At the same time it has to be pointed out that this petition has been filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and that the petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 215 and to proceed against the respondents for alleged disobedience of the ex parte injunction order passed by the learned Civil Judge since the petitioner has already resorted to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. It would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of this court to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution when the petitioner has already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before the court which passed the injunction order and the said application has been dismissed on merits by the said court.
Bunna Prasad And Ors vs The State Of U.P. & Anr on 24 April, 1968
In Bunna Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases of contempt by disobedience of prohibitive order of court, in order to justify committal it was not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it had been granted, if it was proved that he had notice of the order aliunde, as by telegram or newspaper report or otherwise and he knew that it was intended to be enforced or if he consented to the order or if he was present in court when the order was pronounced or when the motion was made although he left before the order was pronounced. In such a case those who assert that a person had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt the benefit ought to be given to the person charged with contempt of court. The court further held that if a person bona fide came to the conclusion on the materials placed before him that the source of information was not authentic he could not be held guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the order. In the above case, the proceedings before a Nyaya Panchayat were stayed by the High Court and a telegram was sent by the counsel to the party but the party without furnishing either a copy of the telegram or any affidavit made an application for stay before the Nyaya Panchayat after the proceedings had commenced. The Nyaya Panchayat on materials placed before it bona fide came to the conclusion that the source of information so furnished before it was not authentic. The Supreme Court held that the members of the Nyaya Panchayat could not be held guilty of contempt of court.
Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, Delhi vs Mrs. Kamla Mathur, Delhi And Another on 25 May, 1982
In the judgment in Dr. Bimal Ch. Sen Vs. Mrs. Kamla Mathur reported in 1982 RLR 553, a Division Bench of this court held that the remedy against disobedience or breach of an injunction order passed by the civil court was under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Aligarh Municipal Board And Ors. vs Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union And Ors. on 4 August, 1970
In Aligarh Municipal Board & Ors. Vs. Ekka Tanga Majdoor Union, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to justify action for contempt of court for breach of prohibitive order, official communication of the order was not a condition precedent, provided the alleged contemner had knowledge of the exact order aliunde and there was no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the order conveyed to him.
R. Rudraiah & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 4 February, 1998
In the judgment in Rudraiah Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that in cases of disobedience or breach of injunction order issued temporarily during the pendency of the suit, action was contemplated by the very court which issued the injunction order, under Rule 2A of Order 39 CPC. The court also held that the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act could not be invoked by the decree holder for forcing the party to obey the injunction order when special procedure and special provision are contained in the CPC itself under Order 39 Rule 2A for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction.
Smt. Indu Tewari vs Ram Bahadur Chaudhari And Ors. on 7 May, 1981
In the judgment in Mrs. Indu Tiwari Vs. Ram Bahadur Chaudhary & Ors. a Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a person who has got an effective alternate remedy of the nature specified under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC should not be permitted to skip over that remedy and take resort to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The court also held that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act when such an effective and alternative remedy was available to any person. I am also of the view that ordinarily a person complaining about disobedience or breach of an injunction order passed by the Civil Court should resort to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC rather than filing a petition in the High Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In this case the petitioner had resorted to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC by filing an application against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge. The said application was dismissed on merits by the learned Civil Judge and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Civil Judge is pending. Having filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and having got it dismissed on merits the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on the same cause of action. Hence I hold that this petition is not maintainable.
1