Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Section 42 in The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Ram Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. And Others vs Assistant Director Of Consolidation ... on 30 March, 1994
13. Similarly in the full bench decision of Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivraji (dead) through LRs and others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others reported in 1997 AWC (Supp.) 454 [ 1997 RD 562] (comprising Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice R.A. Sharma and Honble Mr. Justice R.R.K. Trivedi, JJ) also a question formulated by the Division Bench was referred to the full bench as to whether it is open for the Consolidation authorities to review/ recall their final order exercising inherent powers even though the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not vest them any review jurisdiction. The full bench of the Honble High Court, after considering various decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as single judge and Division Bench cases of own High Court answered the aforesaid question in negative. In respect of various single and Division Bench judgments of the Honble High Court which were cited before the above full bench, it was observed that none of them support the proposition of law that any Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power which is not vested with the power of review under the statute expressly or by necessary implication has an inherent power of review of its previous order in any circumstances. It was further observed by the above Full bench that those decisions only lay down the proposition that a Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power has the inherent power to correct a clerical mistake or arithmetical error in its order and has power to review an order which has been obtained by practicing fraud on the court provided that injustice has been perpetrated on a party by such order. But these decisions should not be construed as laying down any proposition of law contrary to the well settled principle of law that any order delivered and signed by a judicial or quasi judicial authority attains finality subject to appeal or revision as provided under the Act and if the authority passing the order is not specifically vested with power of review under the statute, it cannot reopen the proceeding and review / revise its previous order.
J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors on 11 September, 1996
23. Finally, therefore, as discussed before, firstly a Tribunal should refrain itself from dismissing in default a contempt petition particularly after issuance of show cause notice as discussed in detail in para 19 of this order. However, if a contempt petition has been dismissed for default by a Tribunal, the absence of vesting /conferment of power of review /recall shall not come in the way of recalling such order because such an order is void ab-initio and nonest and the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. The justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Even the law bends before justice and in such matters it becomes the constitutional and legal obligation of a Court/ Tribunal to do the needful as laid down in the case of S. Nagraj (supra).
Anil Kumar Shahi & Ors vs Ram Sevak & Anr on 24 July, 2008
Likewise in the case of Anil Kumar Sahi (2) Vs. Prof Ram Sewak Yadav reported in (2008) 14 SCC 115, the Honble Apex Court held that When the court direct the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding of an authority to whom direction is given, therefore, mere error of judgment with regard to legal position does not constitute contempt of court. There is no willful disobedience, if the best efforts are made to comply with the court order.
Rajaram Waman Masurkar vs Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And ... on 19 July, 2007
In the case of Raja Ram Waman Masurkar Vs. Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak reported in 2008(1) BOM CR 422[ 2007 (109) Bom L.R. 1488- a specific question was decided by a Bench headed by Honble Swatanter Kumar (C.J.) whether the Honble High Court has power to recall its own order and restore the impugned contempt petition which was dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner and his advocate. It was answered in affirmative keeping in view the scope of Contempt jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court in furtherance of the Constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act. It may be noted here that Honble High Court is a Court of record and an inherent power has been conferred upon it under Article 215 of the Constitution to deal with its own contempt which is not available to the Tribunals. Nevertheless, as far as the Contempt of Courts Act is concerned, the Central Administrative Tribunal has the same power which are exercised by Honble High Court. The aforesaid answer rendered by the above Bench of Honble High Court, Bombay has been based not only on the Constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution but also the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, in view of the above ratio contempt petition dismissed for default can be restored by a Tribunal for which no vesting or conferment of power is required. We are further fortified in our view by the case of S.Nagaraj and others Vs.State of Karnataka and another reported in 1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 595. The relevant para is as under:-