Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (4.79 seconds)
Asim Mukhopadhyay vs Sourindra Nath Roy on 10 May, 2002 cites

State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991

5.4 Even assuming that it could be implemented, Mr. Kar had pointed out that even in the 1974 Notification, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the said order. That question also is of no substance since the Court has passed an order despite such a situation that the petitioner, being a Lower Division Clerk, could not come within the ambit of the said notification, as was so held in the decision in Debdas Kumar (1991 AIR SCW 704) (supra) and the unreported decision in Abhijit Chowdhury (1999 AIR SCW 4795) (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 74 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Mohd. Iqbal Khanday vs Abdul Majid Rather on 16 April, 1994

In Md. Iqbal Khandey v. Abdul Mazid Rather, , it was held that where it is impossible to comply with the order, no contempt should be drawn against the alleged contemnor for inaction to implement such order. However, impossibility is distinct from difficulty. If it is difficulty then it is a contempt. However genuine difficulty is excepted. If it is impossibility, it is not. In the present case, distinctly the inaction is on account of impossibility and not difficulty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 35 - S Mohan - Full Document

Saibal Kumar Gupta And Others vs B. K. Sen And Another on 13 January, 1961

We are not unmindful of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dulal Ch. Bhar v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta v. B.K. Sen, and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, (1995) 1 Cal HN 166 : (1995 Cri LJ 2179), as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris v. Rustam Jahangir Napuji, and Noorali Babu Thanewala v. Sh. K.M. M. Setty, wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application, the Court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its orders. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the Court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemnor, if found guilty of Contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 28 - S J Imam - Full Document

Mohammad Idris And Anr vs Rustam Jahangir Babuji And Others on 27 August, 1984

We are not unmindful of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dulal Ch. Bhar v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta v. B.K. Sen, and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, (1995) 1 Cal HN 166 : (1995 Cri LJ 2179), as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris v. Rustam Jahangir Napuji, and Noorali Babu Thanewala v. Sh. K.M. M. Setty, wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application, the Court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its orders. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the Court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemnor, if found guilty of Contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 58 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Noorali Babul Thanewala vs K.M.M. Shetty And Ors on 20 December, 1989

We are not unmindful of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dulal Ch. Bhar v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta v. B.K. Sen, and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, (1995) 1 Cal HN 166 : (1995 Cri LJ 2179), as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris v. Rustam Jahangir Napuji, and Noorali Babu Thanewala v. Sh. K.M. M. Setty, wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application, the Court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its orders. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the Court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the contemnor, if found guilty of Contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 81 - S Mukharji - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Anal Chowdhury on 2 April, 1984

This was, however, explained in the decision in Abhijit Chowdhury (supra). It applied in respect of persons, who are in the Engineering Services. It does not apply to persons engaged in clerical cadre. Admittedly, the petitioner is not performing any Mechanical or Engineering works. He is discharging only clerical jobs. Therefore, it seems that there is genuine difficulty on the part of the State Government to implement the said order.
Calcutta High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - S C Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next