TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Restores Contempt Proceedings, Finds Timely Initiation, Impact of Main Petition</h1> <h3>OM PRAKASH JAISWAL Versus D.K. MITTAL & ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dropping contempt proceedings, and restored the case for further hearing. The Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the bar created by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was attracted to the facts of the case.2. Whether the order dated 6.1.1988 amounts to initiation of proceedings for contempt.Summary:Issue 1: Bar Created by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The appeal challenges an order dated 23.11.1989 by the High Court of Allahabad, which dropped proceedings u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, citing the bar u/s 20 of the Act. The appellant alleged that the respondents demolished his construction despite an undertaking given by their counsel on 19.12.1986 not to disturb or demolish the construction until the disposal of the writ petition. The High Court issued a show cause notice on 15.1.1987, but the proceedings were not initiated until 6.1.1988. The High Court concluded that mere issuance of a notice did not amount to 'initiation of proceedings' u/s 20 of the Act, thus barring the application as it was beyond the one-year limitation period.Issue 2: Initiation of Proceedings for ContemptSection 20 of the Act stipulates that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt after one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The term 'initiate' is not defined in the Act but generally means to commence or start. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, CJ of the Orissa High Court, which clarified that the Court assumes jurisdiction to punish for contempt only when it decides to take action and initiates a proceeding for contempt. The Court further analyzed various stages before initiating contempt proceedings, concluding that mere filing of an application or issuance of a routine notice does not amount to initiation. It is only when the Court forms an opinion that a prima facie case for contempt is made out and issues a notice to show cause why the contemner should not be punished, that proceedings are considered initiated.In this case, the order dated 6.1.1988, which issued notices to the respondents to show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the Court's order, indicated that the Court had applied its mind and formed an opinion that a case for initiating proceedings for contempt was made out. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated within the limitation period prescribed by Section 20 of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the proceedings to the file of the High Court for further hearing in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the outcome of the main writ petition, if disposed of, would have a material bearing on the discretion of the Court to proceed with the contempt proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
