TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an appeal lay under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order refusing to hold the respondents guilty of contempt; and (ii) whether, in contempt proceedings, the Court could re-examine the merits of the seniority list and issue a fresh direction to redraw it.
Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order refusing to hold the respondents guilty of contempt.
Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 is attracted only when the High Court exercises jurisdiction to punish for contempt. An order recording that there was no wilful disobedience and declining to punish the alleged contemners is not an order of punishment within the meaning of the provision.
Conclusion: No appeal lay under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Issue (ii): Whether, in contempt proceedings, the Court could re-examine the merits of the seniority list and issue a fresh direction to redraw it.
Analysis: A contempt proceeding is confined to examining wilful disobedience of the court's . If the Government, acting on the earlier directions, prepares a seniority list, any grievance that the list is incorrect or not in conformity with those directions gives rise to a fresh cause of action to challenge that list in appropriate proceedings. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into a proceeding for re-adjudicating the merits or for issuing a fresh mandatory direction on the seniority dispute.
Conclusion: The Court could not, in contempt, re-open the merits of the seniority list or direct it to be redrawn.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and were dismissed, while leaving the aggrieved parties at liberty to challenge the seniority list in the proper forum.
Ratio Decidendi: Contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining wilful disobedience of an existing order, and an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lies only from an order punishing contempt.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
