Gayatri Devi and ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Prasad Jaiswal and ors.

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........of the deceased. the deceased was getting rs. 1.184/43p + 20% bonus every year. out of rs. 1200/-, the tribunal has taken only rs. 931/- as the monthly dependency and the annual dependency has been assessed at rs. 11,172/-. after taking the multiplier of thirteen years, the tribunal assessed compensation at rs. 1,45,236/-.4. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the age of the deceased and also the fact that the deceased died leaving behind his widow, minor children and other dependents, the award cannot and shall not be less than rs. 2.5 - 3 lacs. we are not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel. admittedly, the deceased was earning rs. 1200/-per month and, therefore, the amount of monthly dependency as taken by the tribunal needs no interference by this court. however, the tribunal ought to have taken the minimum of sixteen years of purchase while assessing compensation. if the annual dependency is multiplied by sixteen years of purchase, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 1,78,772/-. taking to consideration the admitted earning of the deceased, as also the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal, we have no option, but to hold that the amount of compensation which the claimants are entitled cannot be more than rs. 1.75 lacs, besides interest awarded by the tribunal. this appeal is accordingly dismissed.5. the submission of mr. singh, learned counsel for the insurance company that the awarded interest should be reduced is devoid of substance for the reason that the insurance company has neither challenged the award, nor the interest awarded by the tribunal either by preferring any appeal or filing cross-objection in this appeal. in such circumstances, there is no question of interfering with the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal.