Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA
S. Tirupathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
M. Lingamaiah – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7920-7921 OF 2024
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 19647-48 OF 2022]
Leave granted.
2. These appeals assail the common judgment and order dated 27th April, 20221[impugned order, hereafter] of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad2[High Court, hereafter] allowing Review I.A. No. 1/2020 in LPA 1/2018 and Review I.A. No. 3/2020 in CA 33/20173[review petitions, hereafter] preferred by the first respondent. The impugned order of the High Court recalled the order under review and dismissed a contempt appeal as well as a letters patent appeal of the appellant.
3. The present dispute emerges from a complex and interwoven set of legal proceedings, involving myriad parties and decisions rendered by both judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The factual matrix, to the extent relevant for adjudication of these civil appeals, is noticed hereunder:
I. Ms. Sultana Jahan Begum, daughter of Nawab Moin-ud-Dowla Ba
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that contempt proceedings are subject to strict limitation periods, and the concept of a continuing wrong does not apply to single acts of non-compliance with court order....
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
Any contempt proceedings initiated must comply with the one-year limitation period stipulated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, barring exceptional circumstances.
The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers onl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article