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>Contempt for Non-Compliance During Appeal: Order Stands Unless Stayed</h1> <h3>Dr. Sajad Majid Versus Dr. Syed Zahoor Ahmed and Anr.</h3> Dr. Sajad Majid Versus Dr. Syed Zahoor Ahmed and Anr. - TMI Issues:Contempt petition regarding non-compliance of court order pending appeal and the validity of initiating contempt proceedings in such cases.Analysis:1. The case involves a contempt petition where the respondent, a Director of an institution, failed to comply with a court order regarding admission to a medical course, citing the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The question raised was whether contempt proceedings can be initiated or a rule issued against a party before exhausting the time limit for appeal against the court order in question.2. The respondent argued that since he had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the order, contempt proceedings should not be entertained until the appeal process is completed. However, the petitioner contended that the remedy of appeal does not absolve a party from complying with a court direction unless a stay order is obtained from the appellate court.3. The court considered the arguments and emphasized that the mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically stay the implementation of a court order. The court clarified that a party must comply with the court order unless a stay has been granted by the appellate court. Non-compliance during the appeal process without a stay order can lead to contempt proceedings.4. The court referred to previous judgments to support its stance, highlighting that non-compliance based on the pendency of an appeal without a stay order may amount to contempt of court. The court emphasized that parties must adhere to court orders unless a stay has been explicitly granted by the appellate court.5. Ultimately, the court held that there is no bar to initiating contempt proceedings or issuing a rule during the limitation period provided for appeal, even if an appeal has been filed but no stay has been obtained. The court answered the reference question accordingly, clarifying the stance on initiating contempt proceedings in cases of non-compliance pending appeal.6. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with court orders and the limitations of using the appeal process as a justification for non-compliance. It establishes that parties must follow court directives unless a stay order has been granted by the appropriate appellate authority, emphasizing the significance of respecting court decisions and orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
