Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contempt of courts act 1971 section 12 punishment for contempt of court Page 9 of about 3,110 results (0.244 seconds)

L.Shanmugasundaram Vs. G.Palraj,

Court : Chennai

..... the madurai benchof the madras high court dated: 18.09.2014 coram the honourable mr.justice s.nagamuthu contempt petition (md)no.953 of 2014 l.shanmugasundaram ..petitioner/ petitioner versus g.palraj, the managing director, tamil nadu state transport corporation (madurai) limited, bye-pass road, madurai-16..respondent/ respondent contempt petition under section 11 of the contempt of courts act, 1971, to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this court in w.p. ..... therefore, the contemnor is liable for punishment under section 12 of the contempt of courts act. ..... , according to the petitioner, the contemnor is liable to be punished under section 12 of the contempt of courts act. ..... apology and also of the fact that he has today settled the terminal benefits to a tune of rs.9,05,596/- due to the petitioner, i wish to take a lenient view and accordingly i am inclined to discharge him, as per the proviso to section 12 of the contempt of courts act, without imposing sentence. ..... !for petitioner : mr.a.rahul ^for respondent : mr.a.jeyaram :order the petitioner has come up with this contempt petition, alleging that the respondent/contemnor has committed contempt of court by wilful disobedience of the order, dated 29.11.2013, made in ..... , i hold him guilty of contempt of court. ..... but, it would have been appropriate for him to approach this court, on time, with necessary application seeking extension of time by explaining the reasons for his inability to obey the order .....

Bacchu Singh vs.santosh Kumar & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... the present contempt petition instituted on behalf of the petitioner/contemnor under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971, essentially seeks a direction to punish the respondents for non-compliance of the order dated 9th january, 2015, passed by this court in writ petition ..... the present petition is barred by limitation, in view of the mandate of the provisions of section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971.13. ..... the relevant portion of the said order dated 9th january, 2015, is extracted hereinbelow, for the sake of felicity: the prayers made by the petitioner to be permitted to run the business from the said property cannot be granted as, admittedly, the said business cannot be run from the non complaint ..... [1996 (2) scc459, the hon ble supreme court whilst enunciating that, the concept of equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution is a positive concept, which cannot be enforced in a negative manner, observed as follows:-" neither article 14 of the constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor article 226 empowers the high court to enforce such claim of equality before law. ..... cas (c ) 779/201818 page 4 of 6 being unmerited by this court on 31st august, 2018, in the second round of proceedings between the parties, ..... a perusal of the said order reflects that, this court had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking permission to run his business, on account of the circumstance that, the same was being run in a non .....

K.Arasu Vs. K.N.Murali

Court : Chennai

..... respondents petition under section 11 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of court by violating and disobeying the order dated 05.08.2009 made in crl.o.p.no.12854 of ..... for petitioner : mr.m.p.saravanan for m/s.a.kumara guru for respondents : mr.n.anand venkatesh order the contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents for non-compliance with the order of this court dated 05.08.2009 made in crl.o.p.no.12854 of 2009 ..... they have also filed separate affidavits stating that the order of this court dated 05.08.2009 made in crl.o.p.no.12854 of 2009 came to be complied with, of course belatedly, by registering a case against one periyakuppan and five others in cr.no.1659 of 2013 for alleged offences under sections 147, 384, 294(b), 406 and 506(i) ipc read with section 4 of protection of civil rights act, 1955, and that the said case is being investigated upon by the present inspector of police, ..... while deprecating the above said practice of the police officers in general, this court is inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents in their affidavits for the delay caused in complying with the order due to their misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the ..... explanation offered by them that there was no deliberate disobedience is accepted and the same leads to the acceptance of the unconditional apology for the non-compliance with the order of this court within the time stipulated in the order. .....

Ramchandra Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1983SC508; 1983CriLJ857; 1983(2)Crimes213(SC); 1983(1)SCALE703; (1983)2SCC275

..... the appellant is found guilty by the high court of an offence punishable under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 for having written a letter containing certain scurrilous allegations against a sub-divisional magistrate (judicial) in the state of ..... by the judgment and order of the high court the appellant has filed this appeal under section 19 of the contempt of courts act. ..... wrote the letter containing scurrilous allegations as stated above in the year 1974 and he was found guilty of the offence under the contempt of courts act in the year 1975. ..... when the case was taken up by the high court for consideration the learned counsel for the appellant produced before it a statement containing an unqualified apology tendered by ..... the high court convicted the appellant for the offence referred to above and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month ..... now on bail pursuant to an order made by this court for nearly 8 years. ..... he again reiterates before this court that the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant before the high court may be accepted and that the sentence imposed on the appellant may be ..... accept the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and quash the sentence imposed on him by the high court in these proceedings. ..... shri vinoo bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that the appellant should not have written the letter in question and he had done so when he was under great mental stress owing to certain proceedings which .....

Saraswathy Vs. Babu

Court : Chennai

..... respondent this contempt petition is preferred under section 11 of the contempt of court act, 1971 to punish the respondent for wantonly and repeatedly disobeying the order of this court passed in contempt petition no.958 of 2011 in crl.m.p.no.1 of 2011 in crl.m.p.no.1 of 2010 in crl.r.c.no.1321 of 2010 dated 21.7.2011. ..... the statement made by the respondent, vide order dated 21.7.2011 and in paragraph 6 of the order, the court had observed as follows : "6.in view of the categorical submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the statement made by the respondent herein by appearing before this court and stating that the respondent undertakes not to prevent the contempt petitioner from entering inside the premises at door no.80, karpagambal nagar, nandivaram, guduvancherry, chennai and the ..... contempt petitioner also agreed to occupy and stay in the above said premises from 01.08.2011, the contempt petition is hereby closed, by recording the above .....

G.Guruswamy Vs. Mr.Saikumar Ias

Court : Chennai

..... : contempt petition filed under section 11 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for non-compliance of the order dated 11.04.2002 passed in w.p.no.19100 of 1999 on the file of this court. ..... : shri.p.h.aravind pandian additional advocate general assisted by shri.r.ravichandran additional government pleader * * * * * c o m m o n order r.mahadevan, j the contempt petition 1699 of 2011 has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 11.04.2002 and the review application sr has been filed against the order passed in w.p.no.1020 of 1999 dated 11.04.2002 along with petition to condone the delay of 3613 days ..... first respondent also submitted documents to show that they have recalled the order imposing punishment of cut in pension after the final orders of the hon'ble apex court and complied with the earlier orders of this court and paid the terminal benefits.23 ..... . even if the above letters were brought to the knowledge of this court, we don t think that a different view could be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case for the simple reason that this court cannot confer any right, which is not available to the petitioner under ..... montessori school and others [(2013) 7 scc615, the hon'ble apex court dismissed the application for review holding that the error was not germane to the controversy adjudicated ..... after enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and a punishment of cut in pension of rs.150/- per mensum for a period of three years was imposed on .....

P.N. Ramesh Babu and Others Vs. M. Cheemaichamy, The Deputy Superinten ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... (md)no.255 of 2016: contempt petition filed under section 11 of the contempt of court act, 1971, with a prayer to punish the respondent for contempt of disobeying court order in w.p. ..... (md)no.3880 of 2016: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying this court to issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for all records of the second respondent made on 19.2.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission and provide necessary protection to the petitioner and their community members to worship and ..... (prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying this court to issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from passing any orders from reopening the arulmigu sikkumallammal temple, kattunayakkanpatti, theni district to fix a date for worship and celebrate the temple festival by violating the customary rights and practice.w.p. ..... hence, i find that the alleged contemnor has not breached the order of this court dated 4.2.2016 in any manner and accordingly the contempt petition is dismissed. 10. ..... the perception of the deputy superintendent of police, if milani group is permitted to conduct festival on 21.2.2016 and 22.2.2016, there will be law and order problem, cannot be a ground for saying that he has committed an act of contempt. .....

Court on Its Own Motion vs.anil Dureja

Court : Delhi

..... as section 10 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 gives power to the high court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts, the cases of civil contempt can ccp ..... make the respondents amenable to disciplinary proceedings and/or liable to pay compensation or for accused s immediate release but not for civil contempt as defined under section 2(b) of the contempt of courts act, 1971.25. ..... heard learned counsel for parties, this court is of the opinion that just because this court has not framed contempt of court rules does not mean that the subordinate judiciary does not have the jurisdiction or the power to forward cases of civil contempt to the high court. ..... this court is of the opinion that the courts subordinate to the high court cannot reach the conclusion that a matter is fit for indulgence by the high court as a civil contempt. ..... of the allegations in contempt petition, evasive reply filed by sho ps sarai rohilla and material on record, the present matter is fit case for indulgence in the matter by hon ble high court of delhi. ..... metropolitan magistrate while referring the matter has observed in his order dated 05th january, 2016 that the present matter is a fit case for indulgence by the high court under the contempt jurisdiction. ..... malik, metropolitan magistrate, central, tis hazari courts, delhi in which the accused no.1-shamsha begum had submitted that she had been arrested illegally during night hours in violation of section 46(4) of code of criminal procedure (for short cr.p.c. .....

R.Jeyaraman Vs. Mrs.Senthilkumari,

Court : Chennai

..... bench of madras high court dated:15.06.2015 coram the honourable mr.justice s.manikumar and the honourable mr.justice g.chockalingam contempt petition (md)no.724 of 2015 r.jeyaraman ..petitioner/respondent versus mrs.senthilkumari, revenue divisional officer (land acquisition).madurai..contemnor/appellant contempt petition filed under section 11 of the contempt of courts act, 1971, to punish the contemnor/respondent for her wilful disobedience of this court's order in a.s ..... jurisdiction, under article 226 of the constitution of india, can issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to make payment in relation to the amount enhanced by the civil court, in a reference made under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ('the act' for brevity).reliance was placed on a decision in sur reddy versus special deputy collector(la).medak, reported in 1997 (1) ald31 wherein, it has been held that existence of remedy by way of execution petition before a ..... when the court of wards declined to comply with the plaintiff's request, the plaintiff made an application to the calcutta high court under section 45 of the specific relief act and obtained a rule calling upon the court of wards to show cause why the estate should not be released and delivered ..... -holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction of the money decree. .....

D Venkatesh Vs. M G Deendayalan

Court : Karnataka

..... ccc is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the contempt of courts act 1971 r/w article 215 of the constitution of india praying to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the accused for the offence falling under section 2(b) of the act and punish the accused under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 for not obeying the judgment passed by this hon ble court dated 06.09.2011 in ..... having observed that it may not be appropriate to initiate proceedings for contempt, it needs however to be observed that the various legal proceedings that have been resorted to by the respondents including filing of o.s.no.8669/2012 seeking for declaration that the decree sought to be executed was a nullity, filing of an application under section 47 r/w order 21 rules 97, 99 and 101 of cpc in execution petition no.25023/2013 seeking adjudication of the alleged rights ..... respondents have, on the other hand, contended as under: that the present petition is the second attempt to initiate action for contempt while the earlier petition in ccc.no.48/2013 (civil) was dismissed on 21/01/2013; that late govindaraju, their predecessor in title was the original tenant and after his ..... order passed in ccc (civil) no.48/2013 disposed of 21.1.2013 clearly records a finding that the complainant herein could execute the decree as there was no impediment for execution of the same while declining to exercise contempt jurisdiction as the matter had its origin in the ejectment suit which is a civil matter. .....