Back
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Prithawi Nath Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that in contempt proceedings it cannot traverse beyond the order alleged to be non-complied with, and cannot test the correctness or content of the original order. (!) - An aggrieved party should approach the court that issued the order or the appellate court; the rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. (!) - Flouting a court order renders a party liable for contempt, and contempt proceedings must be confined to whether there was compliance with the order. (!) - If the order is impracticable or cannot be implemented, the proper course is to seek relief or challenge the order through appropriate channels, not to re-litigate its validity in contempt proceedings. (!) - The High Court’s order in contempt matters may be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration if it oversteps the bounds of contempt jurisdiction. (!) - After reorganization of states, jurisdiction may involve substituted respondents; appeal is allowed to extent of the remedy as framed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant filed an application under Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the Act ) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ). The foundation of such application was alleged non-compliance of the directions given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in CWJC 1120 of 1998 by order dated 30.3.1999.
2. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court, while dealing with the application for initiation of contempt proceedings, has passed the impugned judgment holding that it would not be proper to take any action for contempt. Though learned Single Judge noticed that the scope of consideration while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings was confined to the question whether there was compliance with the order or not, yet proceeded to examine the correctness of the order and called upon the parties to satisfy him that the direction of the kind contained in the order dated 30.3.1999 could be issued. After an indepth analysis, he came to hold that the directions could not have been given and therefore there was no scope for taking any action for contempt.
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
