TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, when deciding a dispute referred under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, functioned as a court for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952; (ii) whether such a court was subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952; (iii) whether the impugned words used in the appeal grounds amounted to contempt of court.
Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, when deciding a dispute referred under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, functioned as a court for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
Analysis: The dispute was not decided in a summary or private manner, but after reference, notice, written pleadings, hearing of parties, evidence, and legal representation. The Assistant Registrar had powers closely resembling those of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, enforcing attendance, examining on oath, compelling production of documents, reviewing orders, and deciding rights in a lis between adverse parties. The proceeding culminated in a binding and authoritative determination of liability, which satisfied the essential attributes of a court.
Conclusion: The Assistant Registrar was functioning as a court.
Issue (ii): Whether such a court was subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
Analysis: The jurisdiction of the civil and revenue courts was excluded for disputes under Section 48, and the High Court's constitutional power of superintendence under Article 227 extended to judicial control over courts and tribunals. Subordination for contempt purposes was held to mean judicial subordination, not merely subordination in the procedural hierarchy of ordinary civil or criminal courts. The Registrar and Assistant Registrar, while deciding disputes under the Act, fell within that judicial control.
Conclusion: The Assistant Registrar was a court subordinate to the High Court.
Issue (iii): Whether the impugned words used in the appeal grounds amounted to contempt of court.
Analysis: The language charged the Assistant Registrar with mala fides, discriminatory treatment, and acting contrary to judicial probity. The criticism was found to be neither fair nor temperate nor made in good faith, and its obvious tendency was to lower the authority of the court and impute improper conduct to the judicial officer.
Conclusion: The words amounted to contempt of court.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material questions and the conviction for contempt was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal exercising adjudicatory powers with notice, evidence, hearing, and authority to render a binding decision on disputed rights may be treated as a court for contempt jurisdiction, and subordination for that purpose is judicial subordination under constitutional supervision.
TaxTMI 
