Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 4 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Saibal Kumar Gupta And Others vs B. K. Sen And Another on 13 January, 1961
7. Dealing first with the case of respondent No. 2, Shri Ranbir Singh, it is obvious that there is ntohing on the record to suggest that he had any knowledge of the pendency of the writ petition in question in this Court. Indeed, it is conceded by Shri C. B. Aggarwal that there is no material on the record imputing to him such knowledge express or implied, but the counsel argues that the alleged contemner's want of knowledge is wholly immaterial and if the article has a tendency to prejudice the mankind against Surat Singh or is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice in the hearing or the decision of the writ petition pending in this Court, then he must be held guilty of contempt of Court and punished therefore. In support of this submission, he has referred us to paragraphs 8 and 11 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition) Vol. 8, Part I at pp. 6, 7 and 8. The toher decision to which he has drawn our attention in this respect are Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen , in which the following observations occur :--
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.R.M.C.L. Somasundaram Chettiar vs P.R.S.A.R. Periakaruppan Ors. on 13 December, 1929
558., and L. R. Fray v. R. Parshad A. I. R. 195 Punj. 377=60 P.L.R. 265., for the submission that knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings is an essential pre-requisite for holding a person guilty of contempt by publishing offending article. No man, it is argued, can be presumed to be aware of proceedings in Court to which he is nto a party.
State vs Tribhuvan Nath Verma on 30 July, 1958
13. There is one factor to which we may also appropriately advert at this stage. The article was published on 24th July, 1964. The present application was evidently drafted on 16th August, 1967 and even Surat Singh's supporting affidavit was attested on 18th August, 1967. The application was, however, presented in this Court on 18th September, 1967, full one month thereafter. In our view, an application of this nature should be moved with the greatest promptitude and the delay of one month, on the facts and circumstances of this case, seems to suggest that the petitioner was nto bona fide trying to assert the law of contempt, but was presumably inspired by the desire to utilise these summary proceedings to serve some collateral purpose toher than the cause
of justice. Summary powers of punishing for contempt, drastic, as they are in their consequence, have to be used sparingly and only in serious cases where contempt is clearly established and the cause of justice demands action. The usefulness of this power indisputably depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised and this Court would be disinclined to allow it to be used for any purpose toher than that of maintaining the impartiality and objectivity of justice according to law. As observed in State v. Tribhuvan Nath Verma the Court has to be very astute and has to take scrupulous care that this power is nto misused. Incidentally, this decision was cited by the petitioner's counsel and reliance was placed on paragraph 21 of the judgment at p. 266, but that passage does nto seem to us to help the petitioner. The rule against Shri Des Raj Chaudhry is thus also discharged.
E.V. Ramaswami, Leader Dravida ... vs Jawaharlal Nehru on 21 February, 1958
Munir, J. to whose judgment Dr. Aggarwal has specifically referred, did nto hold to the contrary. As against this, the respondents' learned counsel have drawn our attention to E. V. Ramaswami v. Jawaharlal Nehru A. I. R. 1958 Mad.
1