Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD370; 2006(3)ALT433
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The question of the power of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.A.T.') to condone the delay beyond the period specified under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for the purpose of convenience) beyond the period of 30 days specified had been referred to the Full Bench in the light of the decision of yet another Full Bench in G. Narsimha Rao v. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and Ors. : 2005(2)ALT469 (FB), wherein it was held that A.P.A.T. has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review application in the light of the language of Rule 19 of the Rules.2. Several writ petitions are being filed as against the orders of A.P.A.T. wherein the applications moved beyond time under Rule 17 are being dismissed on the ground that A.P.A.T. has no power to condone delay beyond the specified period.3. Sri Rama Rao, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P(MD)No.14417 of 2012 & W.P(MD)No.16698 of 2012 and Cont.P.(MD).No.798 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 & 2 of 2013 in W.P.(MD).No.14417 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.16698 of 2012 Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science and Technology Educational and Charitable Trust, rep. by its Managing Trustee, Dr.Sam G.Jeba Joselin, S.G.Hospital Campus, Old Theatre Junction, Pammam, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.Petitioner in both the writ petitions versus The Director / Commissioner of Technical Education, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.Respondent in both the writ petitions PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.14417/2012 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to permit the 51 students (list of students annexed) of the petitioner college to pursue the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(1)CHN162
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The question, which has fallen for consideration in this case, is whether an original application to the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal) is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.2. An O.A. No. 2832 of 2001 was filed before the said Tribunal challenging the order of vesting passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Officer under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'said Act')- The Tribunal held that the filing of such an application has been made in clear contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal Act') and that, it had no jurisdiction to admit the said application and such the application is to be summarily rejected under Section 10(4) of the Tribunal Act and the Tribunal rejected the application. While so reject...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC245
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by petitioner informing this Court that order dated 5.2.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 20178 of 1989 quashing the impugned order dated 19.9.1989 and directing that the petitioner shall be regularised as teacher of classes VI, VII and VIII with all consequential benefits. 2. It is alleged in the contempt petition that petitioner is a teacher in Intermediate College known as U. P. State Cement Corporation Inter College, managed and run by State Cement Corporation Ltd., Dala Cement Factory, Dala, district, Sonbhadra. He has been working and taking the classes VI to X in the college for several years but was being treated as teacher, belonging to basic sections of the college and was not absorbed in C.T. grade which was converted into L.T. grade from 1989. A writ petition was filed by him which was allowed with the aforesaid directions. 3. Petitioner served a copy of order along with representations dated 26.3.1999 and 20.8.1999...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1895; 1998(2)BLJR1497; (1998)2GLR1711; JT1998(3)SC184; 1998(2)SCALE745; (1998)4SCC409; [1998]2SCR795; (1998)2UPLBEC1320; 1995IBR118
Anand, J.1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, : 1995CriLJ3994 , this Court found the Contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and 'obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language', While awarding punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the Court said:'The facts and circumstances of the present case justify our invoking the power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to award to the contemner a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein. We accordingly sentence the contemner for his conviction for the offence of the criminal contempt as under:(a) The contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : IV(2004)BC152; [2006]130CompCas666(Delhi); 2005CriLJ425; 112(2004)DLT802; 2004(76)DRJ289; 2004(178)ELT129(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this contempt petition filed by the Collectors of Central Excise at Mumbai and Vadodra, it is prayed that appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be initiated and taken by this Court in view of the alleged breach of undertaking dated 21.2.1995 and the alleged willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 26.5.1997 on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (alleged contemners). The Respondent No.5 who was earlier arrayed as a party was deleted by virtue of the order dated 1.3.1998.2. It is alleged that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 26.5.1997 as well as willfully breached the undertaking given to the Court on 21.2.1995 inasmuch as a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.7 crores (being Bank Guarantee No. 7/1995 issued by Punjab and Sind Bank) was not kept alive and, thereforee, could not be encashed. It is further alleged that even the direction of the Court for deposit of the amount of Rs 7 crores given...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: (C.C.C. (Crl.) filed under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 Constitution of India praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to (I) Take cognizance of the offence of the Criminal Contempt of Court Committed by the Accused; and (II) Punish the Accused for her aforesaid Action in the Interest of Justice and Equity. Misc. Crl. No.3168 of 2011 filed under Section 15(1) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 r/w Article 215 of Constitution of India regarding its maintainability) SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., 1. The complainant in this contempt petition, who claims to be the Court auction purchaser of an immovable property purchased on 11.12.2008 (according to the counsel for the accused he is a bidder and not a Court auction purchaser) having purchased an immovable property namely, a residential accommodation in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.1162/1998 has sought for i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(This suo-motu Criminal Contempt Petition is filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying to initiate criminal contempt action against the accused herein and punish him in accordance with law.) ShylendraKumar, J. This criminal contempt petition is registered suo-motu by the registry of this Court on receiving a communication dated 17.2.2011 originating from the office of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur and through proper channel addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court and the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chickballapur having made a request for initiating contempt proceedings against the accused-an advocate practicing before that Court, for the reason that certain uttering by the advocate in the open court hall on the 10th of February 2011, are according to the learned Judge who has passed the orders in RA No.31/2011 pending before that court and which uttering was out of passion whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:Contempt Petitions filed to initiate Contempt Proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnor/Second Respondent for wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.l4993 of 2014, dated 12.6.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Contemnor that the Respondent/Tahsildar, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District had passed an order on 29.6.2016, inter-alia stating that presently against the judgement passed in O.S.No.526 of 1988, the appeal filed by the Petitioner is pending and that the Tahsildar cannot grant/issue patta for more than three cents in respect of a land coming under UDR Scheme and furthermore, if patta is to be issued for more than three cents of land, then the jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai. 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously projects an argument that this Court in W.P(MD)No.4993 of 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
JUDGMENTRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd August, 2011 of the Learned Single Judge refusing to issue notice of and dismissing Cont. Cas(C) No.219/2011 (filed by the appellants) arising out of order dated 5th September, 2008 of this Court in CM(M) No.958/2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the appellants. Since Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for an appeal to this Bench only when the decision of the Single Judge is to punish for contempt and not when the decision is to dismiss the contempt petition, we have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to how the present appeal is maintainable.2. The counsel for the appellant has contended that this appeal is preferred not under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act but under the Letters Patent of this Court. Our attention has been invited to Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399.3. We...
Tag this Judgment!