Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.66 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
P. Shanker Rao vs B. Susheela on 20 January, 2000
In P. Shanker Rao v. Susheela , this Court held that the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 32, or, the Contempt of Courts Act, is not exhaustive, and if the facts warrant, police protection can be ordered, to ensure that the order of temporary injunction is respected.
Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association , held that if the injustice and violation of the orders and decrees passed by the Courts are manifest, the Courts cannot remain as mute spectators, and necessary steps can be taken, directing the parties to restore status quo ante that prevailed, when the concerned order came to be passed.
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Mst. Hajra vs Abdul Majeed Matoo And Ors. on 7 May, 1986
In Hajra v. Abdul Majeed Matoo , it was held that the procedure and steps prescribed under Order 21 Rule 32, in respect of perpetual injunction, and Order 39 Rule 2, in respect of temporary injunction, are not exhaustive, and that in deserving cases, possession can be directed to be restored to the aggrieved party, without requiring him to file separate suit.
Chief Secretary vs Gopal Ramachandra Nadgouda on 4 August, 1989
The Karnataka High Court went a step further, in Chief Secretary v. Gopal Ramachandra Nadgouda 1990 (1) CCC 222. It held that even where execution is instituted under Order 21 Rule 32, in the matters of this nature, the Executing Court can exercise its inherent powers, under Section 151 C.P.C., and give effect to the decree ex debito justicia.
Bagicha Singh vs Suba Singh And Ors. on 12 May, 1982
Reference was made to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Bagicha Singh v. Suba Singh .
1