Back
RAMESH SINHA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Pratap Singh Baghel – Appellant
Versus
Balram Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. special appeal filed against contempt order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. guidelines for contempt appeals from supreme court (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counsel's arguments on jurisdictional excess (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. special appeal not maintainable in contempt cases (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion: special appeal dismissed (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The instant Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952 assailing the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2413 of 2019, Balram Singh v. Smt. Rubi Singh and another.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent with regard to maintainability of the Special Appeal. He further submits that the appellant has filed the Special Appeal assailing the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in a contempt matter, whereby he has been directed to file his response to the framing of charges. He further submits that the Apex Court in para 11 of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chun
The court clarified that appeals in contempt cases are only maintainable against orders imposing punishment, not against dismissals or exonerations.
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....
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....
The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of th....
An intra-court appeal against an order dismissing contempt proceedings is not maintainable as per Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which allows appeals only against orders imposing ....
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....
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.
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
