Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD.SHABBAR RASHIDI
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) – Appellant
Versus
Binod Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Petitioners have complained of violation of the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 passed by us in WPA 30649 of 2016 and in other writ petitions and appeals.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 on April 3, 2025 save and except one of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 being modified. He has pointed out that, one of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on April 8, 2025. All other directions have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has submitted that, petitioners are seeking implementation of such directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 which have not been set aside or modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this contempt petition.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has raised the issue of maintainability of the contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court, at the threshold. He has submitted that, since, Special Leave Petitions were filed a
(1) Doctrine of Merger – When Special Leave Petition is dismissed or disposed of without granting leave there would be no application of Doctrine of Merger, even if order is passed with reasons.(2) C....
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against th....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
Doctrine of merger does not apply to contempt proceedings when Single Judge order confirmed by Division Bench.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
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
