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>Contemners fined for disobeying court orders, making false claims, insincere apology, face fine or jail time</h1> <h3>S.P. Agarwal Versus R.R. Upadhya and Anr.</h3> S.P. Agarwal Versus R.R. Upadhya and Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. Contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution.3. Willful disobedience of the High Court's orders dated 20th October 1976 and 19th May 1977.4. Allegations against an officer of the Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:The applicant, S. P. Agarwal, filed a contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against R. R. Upadhya and S. N. Tewari for willful disobedience of the High Court's orders. The Court found that the respondents had not complied with the orders to pay S. P. Agarwal his salary despite clear directives. The Court noted that the respondents had raised unfounded pleas and made reckless allegations against an officer of the Court, thereby committing contempt.2. Contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution:A second contempt application was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution for the same reasons. The Court observed that the respondents had continued to disobey the orders even after being served notices. The respondents' defense that they were advised by their counsel to deposit the salary in the Supreme Court was found to be without merit, as no stay order had been issued by the Supreme Court.3. Willful disobedience of the High Court's orders dated 20th October 1976 and 19th May 1977:The Court found that the respondents had willfully disobeyed the orders dated 20th October 1976 and 19th May 1977. The order dated 20th October 1976 directed the payment of salary to S. P. Agarwal, which was not complied with. The order dated 19th May 1977 again directed the payment of salary, which was also ignored. The respondents' plea of misunderstanding the order was dismissed as they had received clear legal advice to comply with the orders.4. Allegations against an officer of the Court:The respondents alleged that the stenographer of the Court had wrongly transcribed the order dated 20th October 1976. The Court found this allegation to be baseless and noted that it amounted to gross contempt. The respondents admitted that they were not present when the order was passed and had no record to support their claim. The Court held that making unfounded allegations against an officer of the Court was a serious offense and constituted contempt.Conclusion:The Court concluded that R. R. Upadhya and S. N. Tewari were guilty of willful disobedience of the Court's orders and making reckless allegations against an officer of the Court. The apology tendered by the contemners was found to be insincere and was rejected. Both contemners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each, or in default, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. They were also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 300 to S. P. Agarwal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
