Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.48 seconds)Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
4. Thereafter, the appellant constituted a committee of four officers to submit a meticulous report and after thorough examination of the entire record, the committee submitted its report on 13.07.2018 clearly negating claim of the petitioner and on the basis of record, an assessment/evaluation made by the committee, the appellant proceeded to test the facts of the case in the light of judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma as well as that of this Court's judgement in Shivram Singh's case and, thereafter, the appellant passed an order dated 13.07.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Further it is mentioned that the said report of the committee, the documents relied upon by the committee and the order passed by the appellant had been brought on record in the contempt proceedings by means of an affidavit of the appellant dated 15.07.2018 but when the matter was taken up on 16.07.2018, the Contempt Court observed that till the order dated 28.05.2018 holds the field, the stand taken by the appellant while rejecting the claim of the petitioner could not be accepted and, hence, granted liberty to the appellant to file a review petition for getting the order dated 28.05.2018 reviewed. Further, it is mentioned that, thereafter, the appellant sought legal advise pursuant to which, he challenged the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Contempt Court on the grounds that the order of Writ Court dated 17.04.2017 stood complied with the moment the District Magistrate, Allahabad had passed the order after examining the records of the case, therefore, the appellant had already complied with the order dated 17.04.2017 of the Writ Court, rejecting the petitioner's claim. There was no reason left for drawing the contempt proceedings as he had already passed order dated 23.01.2018 and 13.07.2018 disposing of the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the Writ Court's order dated 17.04.2017. The Contempt Court ought to have consigned the petition but instead of doing that, it has observed that the same was not possible till the order dated 28.05.2018 remained in force. Further, it is mentioned that the Contempt Court could not have gone beyond the order of Writ Court and that there was no scope for the Contempt Court to test the validity of the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the appellant, therefore, if proceedings of the Contempt Petition are allowed to continue, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and the same needs to be set-aside.
Shivram Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 29 November, 2017
Further it is argued that the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that this appeal is not maintainable, is not tenable because by issuing the direction to the appellant by the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 to file his personal affidavit as to why action be taken against him, is quite indicative of the fact that the learned Single Judge has formed opinion that the appellant has failed to dispose of the representation of the respondent in the light of directions given by the Writ Court in Writ C No. 17471 of 2016 whereby the appellant was directed two weeks' time to decide an application of the respondent after examining the original records, keeping in mind the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in case of Shivram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. In pursuance of this, the appellant had already decided the representation of the respondent which has been found to be less than candid by the Contempt Court in the impugned order only because the appellant is found to have not produced material/evidence to establish that the land was given in possession of the Allahabad Development Authority and it was also recorded in the impugned order that the appellant had admitted that there was no evidence or material of the transfer of possession in existence.
Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secry., ... vs Pawan Kumar Singh And 22 Others on 9 September, 2015
11. The other case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is a judgement delivered by a Division Bench of this Court dated 9.9.2015 in Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2014, Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secretary, Home and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and 22 others wherein the attention is drawn of Court to last paragraph of the judgement which is as follows:-
Purshotam Das Goyal vs Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon And Ors on 17 March, 1978
18. In view of the above rulings, it is apparent that no doubt as regards appeal lying under Section 19(1) of the Act against a final order. But there is no discrepancy but as per the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Purshottam Das Goyal case (Supra), it is evident that even an order which is passed at intermediate stage in the contempt proceedings may be appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act which is the case here involved as the order which has been impugned, has been passed by the Contempt Court at intermediate stage of the proceedings.
D.N.Taneja vs Bhajan Lal on 4 May, 1988
15. Further reliance is placed upon the judgement of D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal 1988 3 SCC 26. In this case, it has been held by the Apex Court that an appeal will lie under Section 19(1) only when High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred upon it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt, when High Court does not impose any punishment for contempt on the alleged contemner, it does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish the contemner under article 215 of the Constitution.
Barada Kanta Mishra vs Orissa High Court on 15 September, 1975
16. Further reliance has been placed upon Barada Kanta Mishra Vs. Orissa High Court (1975) 3 SCC 535, in which it is held that right of appeal is a creature of statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. Any person who moves the machinery of the Court for contempt, only brings to the notice of the Court certain facts constituting Contempt of Court. After furnishing such information, he may still assist the Court but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceedings, there are only two parties i.e. the Court and the contemner. Aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the contemner who has been punished for Contempt of Court.
T.N. Godavarman ... vs Union Of India & Ors., State Of J & K & Ors on 15 January, 1998
17. Lastly reliance has been placed upon Environment Awareness Forum Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1999 A.I.R. S.C. 1495, in this case, despite knowing that while Katha is a minor forest produce, Khair is a timber and that the order of the Supreme Court dated 4.03.1997 was not applicable to Khair trees and vide orders of the Court dated 10.05.1996 and 12.12.1996 ban was placed on felling of various trees including Khair trees yet the State Government officials allowed the felling of Khair trees by private company for extraction of Katha. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that prima-facie, there was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the order of Supreme Court and there was a wilful breach of the order of the Court, hence, notices were issued to the officers concerned to show cause as to why the Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against them.
R.N. Dey And Others vs Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others on 19 April, 2000
19. As against the above, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon R.N. Dey and others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others (2000) 4 SCC 400. In this case, the collector made an order under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquisition of 39.02 acres of land believed to be the property of the respondents. Initially the compensation rate was fixed at Rs. 27,126/- per hectare then it was raised to 4,23,500/- per hectare. The State filed an appeal before the High Court against the enhancement and also an application for stay of the payment. The respondent claimants filed an application seeking payment of compensation. The Appellate Court directed an ad-hoc payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was made later on by another interim order dated 15.5.1992. High Court directed that appellants pay three quarters of Rs. 800/- per cottah the rate admitted by appellant. At this stage, the startling information that the respondents had no right, title or interest in the acquired land at all, was brought to the notice of the appellants. It appeared that the suit land had already vested in the state under the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and that the intrmediaries had been paid compensation under that Act. The State contending that the respondents had obtained the award by fraud, moved an application for vacation of the High Court's order for payment. The respondent claimants on the other hand filed an application contending that the officers of the State were in contempt as they had not complied with the order of the High Court. When notice was issued to them, the appellants appeared and tendered an unqualified apology which the Court accepted. The High Court, then, by the same order directed the appellants to deposit with the Registrar the compensation money payable, however, the High Court did not pass an order on an application moved by the Collector, seeking vacating of the rule issued in the Contempt of Court proceedings. The High Court directed that this application would be heard along with the first appeal. In the Appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that in the circumstances, there was no basis for the contempt application and that the High Court ought not to have issued rule in the matter at all. The respondent claimants, instead of filing such an application, could have sought the execution of the award in their favour, as there was no order staying the judgement and award of the Land Acquisition Judge and the first appeal of the appellants was still pending before the High Court. On behalf of respondents, it was contended that the appellants having tendered unconditional apology, no longer had the right to appeal and that the Supreme Court ought not to interfere as matters are still at an interlocutory stage.