SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 160

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM, M.HIDAYATULLAH, V.RAMASWAMI
Debabrata Bandopadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State Of W. B. – Respondent


Advocates:
B.SEN, D.N.MUKHERJI, DEBABRATA MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, NIREN DEY, P.K.BOSH, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI

Judgement Key Points

How to determine whether there has been contempt of court when delays in transmitting orders occur and whether the contemnor can be punished? What is the appropriate form and validity of a bond used to secure payment under contempt proceedings, and who may accept it? What are the circumstances under which convictions for contempt should be set aside and fines refunded due to delays not amounting to contumacious conduct?

How to determine whether there has been contempt of court when delays in transmitting orders occur and whether the contemnor can be punished?

What is the appropriate form and validity of a bond used to secure payment under contempt proceedings, and who may accept it?

What are the circumstances under which convictions for contempt should be set aside and fines refunded due to delays not amounting to contumacious conduct?


Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.: The five appellants are District Magistrate of Nadia and his four assistants who have been found guilty of contempt of the High Court of Calcutta and the Sessions Court of Nadia and sentenced to fines with imprisonment in default of payment. They now appeal by special leave granted by this Court. The facts are long and need a full narration.

2. One Birendra Kumar Sarkar, Sub-Agent of Phosphate Co., Ltd. Krishnagar District Nadia, was prosecuted for contravention of the Fertiliser Control Order read with Section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act and on his own plea was convicted and sentenced to Rs. 20 fine or simple imprisonment for 10 days. We are not concerned with his conviction. The fertiliser seized during investigation was sold by order of the Court and the sale proceeds held in deposit. On the conviction of Birendra Kumar the amount in deposit (Rs. 4215) was directed on March 11, 1963 to be returned to him. The same day the Phosphate Co. Ltd., applied to take out the amount and the Magistrate reversed the earlier order and directed that the amount be paid to the Company. Birendra Kumar appealed to the Sessions Judge, Nadia under Section 520





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top