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

2005 Supreme(SC) 883

ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H.KAPADIA
Director Of Education, Uttaranchals – Appellant
Versus
Ved Prakash Joshis – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • In contempt proceedings under Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court is concerned solely with whether the specific directions in the earlier final order have been complied with. [judgement_act_referred][1000269580006]
  • The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot examine the correctness of the underlying order or adopt a different view from that taken in the earlier decision. [1000269580006]
  • Contempt jurisdiction focuses on whether there was contumacious conduct in failing to comply with unambiguous directions in the judgment or order. [1000269580006]
  • If a party disputes the legal tenability of an order, it must approach a higher court; the contempt court cannot decide the original issues anew. [1000269580006]
  • Orders, right or wrong, must be obeyed; non-compliance renders the party liable for contempt. [1000269580006]
  • In contempt proceedings, the court cannot traverse beyond the alleged non-complied order by directing what should or should not have been done, testing its correctness, issuing additional directions, or deleting existing ones. [judgement_subject][1000269580006]
  • Such actions in contempt proceedings amount to exercising impermissible review jurisdiction. [1000269580006]
  • Where no specific direction for arrears of salary existed in the original writ order, the contempt court erred in deeming continuity of service and directing payment of back wages. [1000269580003][1000269580004]
  • The High Court's order directing arrears of salary in contempt proceedings was set aside, as it exceeded the scope of compliance enforcement. [1000269580008] (!)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Order passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court giving certain directions while dealing with application filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the ‘Act’) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) is challenged in this appeal. The foundation of such application was alleged non-compliance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 129/84 by order dated 16th September, 1997. By the impugned order learned Single Judge has given certain directions while disposing of the Contempt ­Petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants such directions could not have been given while dealing with application for contempt. Such exercise of power is not authorized in law. During the hearing of the application by the High Court the respondent No. 1 (applicant before the High Court) had contended that in view of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition the applicant was entitled to arrears of salary etc. The appellant and the functionaries of the State who were implea








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