comtempt of court
kiran
(Querist) 08 March 2008
This query is : Resolved
any latrst case of cotempt of court with AIR page no.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 10 March 2008
Case/Appeal No: CRIMINAL M.P. NO 794 OF 2008 in CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 5085 OF 2006 in Writ Petition (crl.) 382 of 2001)
Smita Ambalal Patel Appellant Vs. ILA Vipin Pandya Respondent, decided on 2/22/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: contempt of court — petitioner found guilty by DB of Bombay High Court — sentenced to 3 weeks imprisonment — appeal to Supreme Court — this Court passed an order and held that the imprisonment ordered by the High Court would remain suspended for a period of five years and the petitioner herein was directed to give an undertaking before the learned Single Judge — in the form of an affidavit that she will not commit any act of contempt of any court hereafter and that if the said undertaking is violated the sentence of imprisonment imposed on her will automatically revive and the appellant will be liable to be put in prison for undergoing that part of the sentence. It was also indicated in that order that as to what would be the situation after the period of five years will be decided by the High Court on a motion made by the appellant-contemnor — sought modification of the order — dismissed -- clarification sought — no reason to grant the prayers sought for by the petitioner — five years have passed — no further clarification is necessary.
Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4935 of 2007 Arising out of SLP (C.) No.4179 of 2006)
Balakrushna Behera & Another Appellants Vs. Satya Prakash Dash Respondent, decided on 10/22/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Contempt proceedings — direction to the university to complete the entire selection process — the initial direction of the High Court was to complete the selection process and publish the results. That was done by the appellants herein. There was no order of the High Court directing that the respondent be appointed — fail to see how there is any contempt of court — in view of second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Statutes of the University, since no appointment could be made without the prior approval of the State Government, and the State Government having abolished the posts in question, the respondent cannot claim a right to the post, nor is there any contempt of court — no contempt is made out against the appellants herein and the orders dated 24.1.2006 and 27.1.2006 are accordingly set aside and the notice of contempt against the appellants is discharged.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 10 March 2008
(Case/Appeal No: Contempt Petition (civil) 289 of 2003)
Maruti Udyog Limited Appellant Vs. Mahinder C. Mehta and Others Respondents, decided on 10/10/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Contempt petition — petitioner manufacturer of cars — alleged contemnors were Directors of a Company known as M/s. Mahalaxmi Motors Limited (Company). The Company obtained various advances from the customers on behalf of the petitioner. It, however, did not pay the amount to petitioner herein. Respondents admitted their liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7.63 crores in respect of supply of vehicles made by it — arbitration agreement — appointment of Arbitrator — an award was made on 10.04.2005 as against the Company for a sum of Rs. 7.63 crores with interest at the rate of 8% in favour of the petitioner along with costs and expenses — a proposal for sale of the property could be made only if the respondents had any subsisting title thereto and not otherwise — the alleged contemnors have misled this Court and have committed gross contempt of this Court — it is eminently a fit case where jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the contempt of courts Act, 1970 should be invoked — so far as, the alleged contemnor No. 1 is concerned, Court is of the opinion that he being the Managing Director of the Company, is liable to be punished. He is sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. The alleged contemnor No. 2 is also held guilty but as he was not the Managing Director, Court is of the view that sentencing him three months imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice.
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Expert) 27 June 2008
detailed reply Mr. Manish. Its very informative.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 14 October 2009
Mr.Manish Singh thanks for the info.
