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

1990 Supreme(SC) 714

K.RAMASWAMY, S.RANGANATHAN
Tapankumarmukherjee – Appellant
Versus
Heromonimondal – Respondent


Advocates:
G.RAMASVAMY, Indu Malhotra, NISHA BAGCHI, RATHIN DAS, S.MURALIDHARAN

JUDGMENT

S. RANGANATHAN, J.:— A Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta found he appellant guilty of contempt of court and, rejecting the apology tendered by him, imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 / -. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal petition.

2. The petition was originally numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13144 of 1989 and was dismissed by an order dated 23-10-89. It was, thereafter, pointed out that the petition must have been treated as an appeal petition under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly we recalled our order dated 23-10-1989 and directed the SLP to be renumbered as a Criminal Appeal and listed for hearing. That is how this appeal comes up before us now.

3. There has been a delay in the filing of Special Leave Petition and, consequently, this appeal. After hearing both parties, we condone the delay in the filing of the petition. We admit the appeal and proceed to dispose it of.

4. On 15-6-87, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order to the following effect :

"There will be an interim order until the disposal of this appeal to the effect that the respondents are restrained from interfering with t











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