Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
B.C. Chakrabarti v. & N.G. Chaudhuri, JJ.
Samir Kumar Sarkar
vs.
Maharaj Singh
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 392 of 1982
Decided On : August 20, 1982
CONTEMPT OF COURT - WEST BENGAL CONEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - Ss. 2(b), 10 - Violation of court order - Interfering with administration of justice - Contempt application - Maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a contempt application alleging that the respondent violated a court order and interfered with the administration of justice by forcibly entering a fishery and attempting to oust the petitioners, despite being served with a notice of the injunction. The respondent claimed that the application was not maintainable, that the deponent of the affidavit verifying the petition was not duly authorized, and that the allegations were false and mischievous.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contempt application was not maintainable because it was not in conformity with the Rules framed under the Act, the allegations were not proved by cogent materials, and the real intention behind the application was to obtain a speedy remedy by way of speedy execution of the order of injunction or a further injunction, which could be better dealt with under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the contempt application was maintainable? 2. Whether the allegations of violation of court order and interference with administration of justice were proved? 3. Whether the real intention behind the application was to obtain a speedy remedy by way of speedy execution of the order of injunction or a further injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contempt application was not maintainable because it was not in conformity with the Rules framed under the Act, the allegations were not proved by cogent materials, and the real intention behind the application was to obtain a speedy remedy by way of speedy execution of the order of injunction or a further injunction, which could be better dealt with under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code. 2. The court held that the allegations of violation of court order and interference with administration of justice were not proved by cogent materials. 3. The court held that the real intention behind the application was to obtain a speedy remedy by way of speedy execution of the order of injunction or a further injunction, which could be better dealt with under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and made no order for costs.
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.
This is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for criminal contempt on the allegations of violation of Court's order and thereby interfering with and/or obstructing administration of justice tending to lower the authority of the Court.
2. The case of the petitioners is as follows :-
The tank fishery recorded in Khatian No. 638 of Mouza Dhapamanpur popularly known as Gomukhpota fishery belongs to the petitioners in absolute right on the basis of their purchase by a registered deed dated March 6, 1963 from the then owner in possession Sm. Monorama Das Chowdhury who in her turn got the said property by virtue of a deed of gift dated October 1, 1982, Since purchase the petitioner as joint owners have been in actual physical possession of the said fishery and their names were duty mutated in the revenue records of the mouza. While in possession, the petitioners were served with a notice issued by the State of West Bengal in the name of the previous owner claiming that the fishery had vested in the State, Against the said order the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule and interim order of injunction restraining the State of West Bengal and its officers from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Eventually the Rule was disposed of with the direction that the Revenue Authorities would not give effect to the order to be passed by the Revenue Officer or interfere with the possession of the petitioners for a period of 3 weeks after disposal of the proceeding by the Revenue Officer. After the Revenue Officer disposed of the said proceeding pending before him against the petitioners, the petitioners again moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the said order and again obtained a Rule and interim earlier of injunction. The said Rule is still pending and the interim order is still in force.
3. The respondent is the son of a Darwan of "Sarkar Estate" of Beliaghata of which the petitioners are co-sharers. The respondent has no concern with the fishery and has no manner of right, title or interest over the same. With a view to cause mischief to the petitioners and for making wrongful gain to himself respondent moved an application under S. 144 Cr. P.C. before the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpur and by fraudulent misrepresentation and without impleading the petitioners obtained an ex parte order on July 18, 1981. On coming to know of the said proceeding the petitioner moved this Hon’ble Court and obtained a Rule and ad interim order of stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate. In the meantime the respondent filed a suit being Title Suit No. 94 of 1981 in the Second Court of subordinate Judge at Alipore making false representation and allegations against the petitioners. The respondent prayed for injunction in the said suit which was refused Being thus baffled in his attempts, The respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioners. The respondent with his agents and associates suddenly carne to the fishery on September 20, 1981 with the object of ousting the petitioners from the fishery. As the Police Authorities failed to take any steps in spite of the matter being reported to them, the petitioners moved a writ application against the State of West Bengal, Superintendent of Police. Additional Superintendent of Police, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station and the respondent and his associates with the prayer for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 2 to 4 therein to act and proceed in accordance with law. Tile petitioners obtained a Rule and au Interim order, the Rule being still pending. In spite of all these facts the respondent with his agents and associates again made attempts on January 23, 1982 to dispossess the petitioners and take forcible possession of the fishery. There being continuous attempt
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
