Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Lakhbir Singh vs Harpinder Singh And Ors. on 8 May, 2003
In Lakhbir Singh v. Harpinder Singh (Supra), the Punjab and
CS(OS) 1389/2012 Page 7 of 10
Haryana High Court, held as under:
Chhotu Ram vs Urvashi Gulati & Anr on 24 August, 2001
"13. ...The observation as above finds support from a
decision of this Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati &
Anr. (2001 (7) SCC 530), wherein one of us (Banerjee, J.)
stated as below :-
Mrityunjoy Das & Anr vs Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors on 16 March, 2001
14. Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v.
Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors. (2001 (3) SCC 739) and as
such we need not dilate thereon further as to the burden and
standard of proof vis- a-vis the Contempt of Courts Act -
Suffice it to record that powers under the Act should be
exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather
sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for
proper administration of the justice delivery system in the
country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of
1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which
there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action
being bona fide."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002
18. It must be remembered that standard of proof required to establish a
charge of contempt is that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubts.
Reference may be had to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anil
Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 21. In para
13 and 14 (relevant portion) the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Thresia vs Johny on 17 October, 2002
Para 3 of the plaint simply states that the
plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property as highlighted in the plan.
There is no averment which states about the exact area in possession of the
petitioner. It is further stated that as far as the status report filed by the
protection officer is concerned, it is a manipulated report and cannot in any
CS(OS) 1389/2012 Page 4 of 10
manner be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner was, at any stage, in
exclusive possession of more than one bedroom in the suit property. Learned
counsel also relies upon the judgments in Thresia and another v. Johny
and Others, AIR 2003 Kerala 97; Lakhbir Singh v. Harpinder Singh and
others AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 126; and Jugan K. Mehta v. S.S.
Gulati and others 2004(4) CCC 299 (Del.) to submit that in the absence of
any clear evidence a person cannot be punished for violation of a status quo
order on mere surmises and that unless the violation of the injunction order
is proved beyond reasonable doubts, no contempt can be said to have arisen.
Jugan K. Mehta vs S.S. Gulati And Ors. on 27 September, 2004
Para 3 of the plaint simply states that the
plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property as highlighted in the plan.
There is no averment which states about the exact area in possession of the
petitioner. It is further stated that as far as the status report filed by the
protection officer is concerned, it is a manipulated report and cannot in any
CS(OS) 1389/2012 Page 4 of 10
manner be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner was, at any stage, in
exclusive possession of more than one bedroom in the suit property. Learned
counsel also relies upon the judgments in Thresia and another v. Johny
and Others, AIR 2003 Kerala 97; Lakhbir Singh v. Harpinder Singh and
others AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 126; and Jugan K. Mehta v. S.S.
Gulati and others 2004(4) CCC 299 (Del.) to submit that in the absence of
any clear evidence a person cannot be punished for violation of a status quo
order on mere surmises and that unless the violation of the injunction order
is proved beyond reasonable doubts, no contempt can be said to have arisen.
1