Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.61 seconds)State Of U.P.Thro.The Prin.Secy./Secy ... vs Ganesh Prasad Pandey And Ors. ... on 26 September, 2014
ii. On 20.12.1995, nearly 1000 (one thousand) fresh vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Bahraich District were advertised in which the qualification was B.T.C. or equivalent to B.T.C. Against the said advertisement dated 20.12.1995, various writ petitions were filed. The said writ petitions were decided by common judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 extending the benefit of judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 passed in the Bunch of petitions leading No.2447 (S/S) of 1991 (Triveni Prasad Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and also the benefit of judgment and order dated 01.11.2001 passed in Special Appeal no.21 of 1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Triveni Prasad Pandey).
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union And Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 5 September, 2003
In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union versus Dharam Godha and Others, (2003) 11 SCC 1, the expression 'wilful disobedience' in the context of Section 2(b) of the Act was read to mean an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something, which the law forbids or with the specific intention to fail to do something which the law requires to be done. Wilfulness signifies deliberate action done with evil intent and bad motive and purpose. It should not be an act, which requires and is dependent upon, either wholly or partly, any act or omission by a third party for compliance.
Daroga Singh & Ors vs B.K. Pandey on 13 April, 2004
The Court further explained the scope of contempt proceedings observing: (Daroga Singh case [(2004) 5 SCC 26 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1521] , SCC pp. 46-47, para 33) :
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Triveni Prasad Singh And 39 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 September, 2019
ii. On 20.12.1995, nearly 1000 (one thousand) fresh vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Bahraich District were advertised in which the qualification was B.T.C. or equivalent to B.T.C. Against the said advertisement dated 20.12.1995, various writ petitions were filed. The said writ petitions were decided by common judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 extending the benefit of judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 passed in the Bunch of petitions leading No.2447 (S/S) of 1991 (Triveni Prasad Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and also the benefit of judgment and order dated 01.11.2001 passed in Special Appeal no.21 of 1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Triveni Prasad Pandey).
Section 13 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
In case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, it was held that this defense would not be allowed if a doubt about the order has been deliberately created when actually there is no doubt at all. It is well settled that in proceedings for civil contempt, it would be a valid defence that the compliance of the order is impossible. However, the cases of impossibility must be distinguished from the cases of mere difficulty.
S. Balasubramaniyam vs P. Janakaraju And Anr. on 29 April, 2004
In the case of the S. Balasubramaniyam vs P. Janakaraju and another reported at 2004 (5) Kar L.J. 338, the High Court of Karnatka observed that the orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in appeal/revision.
Bank Of Baroda vs Sadruddin Hasan Daya And Anr on 12 December, 2003
Reference was made to Bank of Baroda versus Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Another, (2004) 1 SCC 360 wherein the ratio in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka and Another (supra) that violation or breach of an undertaking, which becomes part of the court decree itself, amounts to contempt, irrespective of whether it is open to the decree holder to execute the decree, was upheld. This, it was observed was the law and it cannot be argued that if the party aggrieved can execute a decree per se, it can be a defence having bearing on the contempt proceedings.