Court : Guwahati
Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the contemnors, is directed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge recording prima facie satisfaction of commission of contempt of Court in violating the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No.378/2010 and drawing up the contempt proceeding against them, which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No.20/2010, and asking them to show-cause as to why action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the 1971 Act) shall not be taken and appropriate punishment for contempt of court shall not be awarded. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal may be noticed as under: (i) The Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department, vide notification dated 16.04.2007, initially brought the New Hindi Secondary (Hindi and English medium) School, Khejurbagan, Agartala, under the State Grant-in-Aid scheme of the Education (School) Department w.e.f. 01.04.2007, thereby bringing all the existing 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT232
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. This contempt case is filed by the widow of late G. Krupanandam, under Sections 10 - 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for punishing the respondents for not having complied with the directions issued by this Court in WPMP No. 18938 of 1989 in W.P. No. 14310 of 89 dated 6-10-1989. Originally three respondents were impleaded and later by order dated 30-10-1992 in Contempt Application No. 429/92, the fourth respondent has been impleaded.2. The petitioner contended that the order dated 6-10-1989 passed in WPMP No. 18938 of 89 has not been implemented by paying the salary due to her deceased husband in the light of the judgment in W.P. No. 4926 of 1986 dated 18-1-1989, which amounts to disobedience of the orders of this Court. The petitioner contended that by virtue of interim directions, she is entitled for payment of half of the salary which was payable to her husband during his life time. She got issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1989Cal375,(1989)1CALLT146(HC)
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The respondent 1 Ramniwas Poddar and the respondent 2 Keshar Dev Sharaf carry on business under the name and style of Poddar and Sharaf, the respondent 3 herein and are the owners of the premises No. 1 Belvedere Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises').2. Under a scheme of amalgamation duly approved by this Court as well as by the Bombay High Court, the Indian Tube Company Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner as a result whereof all the assets and liabilities, rights and obligations of the Indian Tube Company Ltd. were taken over by the petitioner and the same stood transferred, merged and vested in the petitioner.3. The Indian Tube Company had entered into four agreements with Poddar and Sharof, the respondent 3 herein, for purchasing four flats in the said premises being Flats Nos. 5E, 9E, 12A and 14A. These agreements contained arbitration clauses for resolving the disputes arising out of these contracts. Subsequently, disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IIIAD(Delhi)598; 1999CriLJ4276; 79(1999)DLT153; 1999(49)DRJ642; 1999RLR438
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Section 151 CPC for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents/contemnors and for punishing them for wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court dated 25.5.1991. This Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/contemnors who are mentioned as respondents/contemners in this petition, passed the following order :- 'In view of the above discussion, the suit is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 3,000/- and the plaintiffs are also directed to take out an FDR From a Nationalised Bank in the sum of Rs. 25.40 lacs in the name of the Registrar of this Court for a period of one year, in the first instance will be subject to further orders of this Court depending upon the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Court at Chandigarh and to the result of a claim, if any, made be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(4)BomCR184; (1995)97BOMLR365
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 17th December, 1988, made by the Labour Court, Sangali, holding charge of Labour Court, Kolhapur, in Application (LCK) No. 4 of 1988 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The First petitioner is the Managing Director, the Second petitioner the Chairman and the rest of the petitioners are Directors of the Co-operative Society which runs a textile Mill at Ichalkaranji. The Second respondent is a registered and representative union of the employees in the concerned local area. The Fourth respondent is another Union which represents the employees working in the Textile Mills in the same local area. 3. The Second Respondent made an Application (BIR) No. 4 of 1988 under Section 78(1)A(C) of the Act to the Labour Court at Kolhapur. The Kolhapur Zilla Shetkari Vinkari Sahakari Soot Girani Limited and the M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR61; (1995)97BOMLR661
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This Court issued rule on 13th January, 1995 to the respondents/contemnors calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as they wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned School Tribunal dated 3-2-1994.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Instructor by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Sujata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Dhanora Kd., Tahsil Mangrulpir, district Akola with effect from 1-7-1987. His services being terminated on 4-7-1992, he preferred an appeal No. 98 of 1992-A before the School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad division, Aurangabad. The appeal was decided on merit. The learned School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner and passed the following order on 3-2-1994.'The appeal is allowed.2. The impugned oral termination dated 4-7-1992 done by the respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1108-1115 of 2004 are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 25.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. O.C.P. Nos. 18 and 25 of 1999, Crl. O.C.P. Nos. 3,4,5,18,19 and 20 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench after rejecting the claim of the appellants herein found all of them guilty of criminal contempt and convicted them under Section 12 read with Sections 15 and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")and sentenced them to various terms of simple imprisonment and fine. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, one Surinder Sharma has filed Crl. A. No. 1206 of 2004. Since the issue in all these appeals is common and relate to one incident, they are being disposed of by the following judgment.2) Brief facts:(a) The District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, by his letter dated 16.09.1999, addressed to the Registrar, High Court of Punj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR35; 1996CriLJ3910; 1996(2)MhLj615
1. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate-General has raised preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of this court in this contempt petition. He submits that in the contempt petition, the grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondents be punished for gross, wilful and deliberate contempt committed by them by not complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 (reported in AIR1995 SCW 3701 and according to Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate-General, this court has no jurisdiction to examine whether the order of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 (reported in AIR1995 SCW 3701) has been complied with or not. In other words the objection of the learned Advocate-General is that the High Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the civil contempt of order or judgment or the direction of the Supreme Court. 2. Confronted with this preliminary objection raised by the Advocate-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1227; (2001)2UPLBEC1259
V. M. Sahai, J1. This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against Sri Y. C. Simhadri. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Sri V. V. Menon, Controller of Examinations, Banaras Hindu University and Sri P. C. Upadhyaya, Registrar, Banaras Hindu University for wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.3.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47177 of 1999. It is prayed that the aforesaid respondents be punished for contempt of court.2. Notice on contempt application was served on Sri V. K. Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing for respondents on 26.3.2001. This application came up before this Court on 27.3.2001 and it was directed to be put up along with the records.3. Petitioner appeared in LL.B. IInd year examination in 1997. After examination of LL.B. IInd year, the petitioner was expelled by order dated 5.2.1997 passed by Vice Chancellor of the university. The expulsion was for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD370; 1997(6)ALT718
ORDER1. In this Contempt Case, petitioners seek a direction to punish the respondents for having disobeyed the direction issued by this Court in CMP Nos.2394 and 6426 of 1994 dated 28-4-1994 as they failed to deposit the amount with interest from 15-3-1993 till the date of deposit, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. Before proceeding to examine the plea set-forth by the petitioners and respondents, few facts are necessary to be traced out for proper appreciation of the case.3. The respondents are the managing partners of the plaintiff firm M/s Quadri Enterprises in O.S.No.5 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam. The said suit O.S.No.5 of 1993 was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff firm is entilled to hold lease for a period from 21-10-1974 to 20-10-1994 in respect of the lands to an extent of 35.30 guntas in S.No.354 and 391 of Laxmipuram village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam and also for a declaration that the agreement dated 26-5-1992 between Khaja Khan (p...
Tag this Judgment!