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

1990 Supreme(Kar) 629

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Mohan,Venkatachala,Murlidher Rao
A.V.KOWDI AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
R.V.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA - Respondent
C. C. C. 364 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/27/1990
Advocates Appeared :
SHIVAKUMAR KALLUR

The power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered.

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act - Interpretation of Section 20 - Effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act - Contempt of High Court - Article 215 - ILR1989 KAR 3572, 1990 (1) Karlj201, AIR1978 Kant 57, ILR1990 KAR 42 - The court discussed the conflicting decisions on the interpretation of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act and its effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. It held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 applies to proceedings initiated by the High Court for contempt of itself, and the limitation of one year commences from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The court overruled previous decisions and concluded that the period of one year in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable only in respect of contempt of subordinate Courts and has no application in cases of contempt of High Court. The power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered.

Fact of the Case:

The court addressed conflicting decisions on the interpretation of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act and its effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. It discussed whether the period of one year prescribed in Section 20 is applicable to contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution, in respect of Contempt of High court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 applies to proceedings initiated by the High Court for contempt of itself, and the limitation of one year commences from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. It overruled previous decisions and concluded that the period of one year in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable only in respect of contempt of subordinate Courts and has no application in cases of contempt of High Court. The power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered.

Issues: The conflicting interpretations of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act and its effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 applies to proceedings initiated by the High Court for contempt of itself, and the limitation of one year commences from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered.

Final Decision: The court overruled previous decisions and concluded that the period of one year in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable only in respect of contempt of subordinate Courts and has no application in cases of contempt of High Court. The power conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered.

MURLIDHER RAO, J.

( 1 ) CONFLICTING decisions on the interpretation of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act and its effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India, have given rise to the following question:- whether the period of one year prescribed in Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act is applicable to contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution, in respect of Contempt of High court?

( 2 ) IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. Y. K. SUBBANNA 1990 crilj1159 , ILR1989 KAR 3572 , 1990 (1 )Karlj201 (Contempt of Court Case - Criminal 8/ 84) a Bench consisting of DRVJ and KBNJ framed the following questions for consideration:

" (1) Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act is attracted to case 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 for Section 20 of the Act?"

( 3 ) IT was held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts act applies to proceedings initiated by the High Court for contempt of itself. Consequently it was held that the limitation of one year would commence from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. This was reiteration of the view expressed in venkataramanappa v. D. K. NAIKAR AIR1978 Kant 57 , air1978 KAR 57 , 1978 Crilj726.

( 4 ) IN KANAKARAJ MEHTA v. SHIVAKUMAR -CCC (Civil) No. 35 of 1989 ILR1990 KAR 42 , Bench consisting of Mr. M. Rama Jois, J and Mr. M. Ramakrishna, J, held that the period of one year in Section 20 applies to proceedings for contempt of subordinate Courts in which the High Court exercises power under the Contempt of courts Act and would not apply to cases under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in contempt proceedings against itself.

( 5 ) IN all the above cases the 'contempt' complained of was that of this Court; hence the question which needs examinations is whether the power of this Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against itself is controlled by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act reads thus: "20, Limitation for action for contempt-No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. "

( 6 ) IN the first of these cases namely, Venkataramanappa v. O. K. Naikar, as rightly pointed out in kanakaraj Mehta's case, contention relying on Article 215, Constitution of India, with reference to Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act was neither raised nor considered. But it was nevertheless held that contempt proceedings arising out of proceedings in this Court initiated after one year, from the alleged date of commission, could not be entertained. The opinion of the Bench in kanakaraj Mehta's case finds support from similar observations in an order of (earned single judge of Calcutta High Court in TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. v. RAMNIVAS AIR1989 Cal 375 , (1989 )1 CALLT146 (HC ).

( 7 ) BEFORE considering the amplitude of this provision, as a cautious approach, it is necessary to state that a ruling of this Court or the Supreme Court is an authority for what it decides. It is the ratio of the decision which assumes the character of precedent. A reference to certain statutory provisions in the course of discussion becomes inevitable to understand the scope, ambit, application of several matters which the legislation intends to enact. The various chapters in a statute are intended to deal with several topics and allied situations in tackling the problems for which the Act is enacted. It is axiomatic that no provision is redundant. Therefore if the legislature bearing in mind the several aspects and the object makes provisions in several sections, the Courts are required to find out the scope and the area of operation of each Section. In this endeavour reference to a provision, which in the













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 Back to top