Back
Karnataka High Court
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
Y.K.SUBBARNNA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-23-89
C.C.C.(CRI.) : 8 of 1984
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 20 - LIMITATION - INITIATION OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - MATERIAL DATES - HIGH COURT'S POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT OF ITSELF - ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 20 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Contempt proceedings were initiated against the accused for impersonating another person and signing a compromise application in a regular first appeal pending before the High Court. The accused contended that the initiation of the proceedings against them on 11-10-1984 was without jurisdiction, as a period of one year had elapsed from the date of the alleged contempt.
Finding of the Court:
1. The period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is attracted to cases of contempt of the High Court which is a court of record initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution. 2. The material date for purposes of Section 20 of the Act is the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 3. The material date to decide as to when the proceedings for contempt have been initiated would be the date on which the court assuming jurisdiction, issues notice.
Issues: 1. Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is attracted to cases of contempt of the High Court which is a court of record initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution? 2. What are the material dates for purposes of Section 20 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt and punish where necessary is inherent in all courts of record and it is well established that this is a special jurisdiction. Contempt is a special subject and the jurisdiction is conferred by a special set of laws peculiar to courts of record. 2. Article 215 of the Constitution declares that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This Article vests the rights in every High Court to punish for contempt of itself and no act of legislature could take away the jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority. 3. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a procedural provision which prescribes a period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings. The word "court" used in Section 20 is of wider amplitude taking within its fold cases of contempt of the High Court as well. Section 20 applies to any proceedings for contempt whether initiated on its own motion of otherwise. 4. The material date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation of one year would be the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 5. The material date to decide as to when the proceedings for contempt have been initiated would be the date on which the court assuming jurisdiction, issues notice.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the accused were dropped and they were discharged.
( 1 ) THE proceedings in the top noted matter have been registered on the basis of the order dated October 11, 1984 made by a division bench of this court in regular first appeal No. 206/80. The proceedings came to be registered and initiated against y,k, subbanna, kamaiah, k. Jayaram, y. k, ramakrishna, Smt. Marakka and smt shantamma accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively (who would be hereinafter referred to as accused with reference to their respective array, under the Provisions of the contempt of courts act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in the following circumstances :
( 2 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 6 are relatedto each other. Their relationship inter se is as under : accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the sons of accused No. 2. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 4.
( 3 ) ACCUSED No. 1 was the plaintiffin the original suit No. 20 of 1972. The suit was for partition and separate possession of his (accused No. 1's) share in the properties, the subject- matter of the suit. Kamaiah, accused No. 2 ; k. Jayaram, accused No. 3; y. K. Ramakrishna, accused No. 4; and Smt. Marakka, accused No. 5 were defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the suit. Accused No. 1 as plaintiff had impleaded one nanjappa as defendant No. 5 in the suit alleging that the sale stated to have been made in respect of one of the items of the subject-matter of the suit by Smt. Marakka, accused No. 5, herein who was defendant No. 4 in the suit in favour of the said nanjappa was also partible joint family property and that the sale was not binding on him (accused No. 1)
( 4 ) THE learned iv addl. Civiljudge, Bangalore city, who tried the suit, dismissed it on the ground that the suit being one for general partition, the family members, who were entitled to shares at a partition, were necessary parties to the suit and that Smt. K. Vimala, daughter of kamaiah, accused No. 2, who was unmarried at the time of the suit, had not been impieaded as a defendant in the suit, though she was a necessary party.
( 5 ) ACCUSED No. 1, feeling dissatisfiedwith the dismissal of his suit, preferred regular first appeal No. 206/80 to this court against the judgment and decree dated July 30, 1980 passed in original suit No. 20,72.
( 6 ) IN the appeal, accused No. 1,as appellant, filed interlocutory application, numbered as i. a. No. Ii, to implead vimala as a respondent. It appears that notice of i. a. No. Ii was directed to the proposed respondent-vimala and that one b. Narasimha murthy a practising Advocate filed vakaiatnama purporting to be executed by vimala and submitted that i. A. No. Ii may be allowed and nimaia be impleaded as a party in the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the other respondents viz. , Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and nanjappa too submitted that i. a. No. Ii may be allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.
( 7 ) THE division bench of this court allowed i. A. No. Ii and impleaded vimala as respondent No. 6 in the appeal.
( 8 ) THERE were two interlocutory applications numbered as i. A. Nos. Xi and xi! In the appeal pending consideration. On September 30, 1983 accused No. 1 as appellant. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and nanjappa as respondents 1 to 5 respectively filed a compromise application styled as 'rajinama' under Rule 3 order xxiii of the code of civi! Procedure (the 'code' for short ). This compromise application was numbered as i. a. No. Xiii. In view of the filing of i. a. No. Xiii, in appears a submission was made by the learned counsel representing the parties to the appeal, that i. a. Nos. Xi and xii which stood superceded by i. a. No. Xiii had become infructuous and that they may be dismissed as withdrawn. The division bench of this court placing on record the submissions made, dismissed i. a. Nos. Xi and xiii as withdrawn.
( 9 ) I. A. No. Xiii filed before the division bench on September 30, 1983 also contained the signature purported to be that of vimala impleaded as respondent No. 6. On
AI
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
