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

2000 Supreme(SC) 815

M.B.SHAH, K.T.THOMAS
R. N. Dey – Appellant
Versus
Bhagyabati Pramanik – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The document emphasizes that contempt proceedings are not meant to be used in cases of mere disobedience or disputes over the correctness of an order. It highlights that a party's wilful disobedience involves a deliberate and intentional act of non-compliance. Furthermore, the document suggests that if a party has not willfully disobeyed an order but instead was unaware of it or could have easily learned about it, the contempt action may not be justified. Specifically, it indicates that in situations where a party could have acquainted itself with the order through proper diligence, the disobedience may not be considered wilful. Therefore, the document holds that wilful disobedience does not always require direct service of the order if the party could have known about it through reasonable means.


JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Delay condoned.

2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 4th August,1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.No.628 of 1998 and C.P.A.N. No. 1822 of 1997 in F.A.No. 232 of 1988. By the impugned order, the Court accepted unqualified apology tendered by the appellants in compliance with the orders of the Court for not paying the balance award money due to the respondents. The Court further directed the appellants to deposit with the Registrar (Appellate Side) the compensation money determined in terms of order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of the lands acquired by the State as mentioned in the order and decree within two weeks from the date of the order without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in such proceedings. Further, the Court did not pass any order on the application filed by the Collector for vacating the Rule issued in the contempt proceeding holding that Collector cannot go behind the Award passed by him as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.

3. It is the contention of the appellant that the land in question has vested in the State Government under the Estates Acquisition Act,1953 an


















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top