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 the contempt order could be sustained when the High Court did not follow the procedure prescribed by law and the requirements of natural justice; (ii) Whether the contempt proceedings should be transferred to the principal seat of the High Court for fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether the contempt order could be sustained when the High Court did not follow the procedure prescribed by law and the requirements of natural justice.
Analysis: The contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is available to the High Court, but it must be exercised in the manner required by law. The record showed that the appellants were proceeded against and punished on the same day without compliance with the procedural safeguards contemplated by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the applicable High Court Rules. In such circumstances, the order could not stand.
Conclusion: The contempt order was unsustainable for want of compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Issue (ii): Whether the contempt proceedings should be transferred to the principal seat of the High Court for fresh consideration.
Analysis: Since the incident had occurred at the Lucknow Bench and the concerned Judges were no longer on the Allahabad High Court Bench, transfer of the matter to the principal seat was considered for avoiding embarrassment and for orderly disposal. The proceedings were directed to be heard afresh by a Bench nominated by the Chief Justice, with the procedure under Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 to be followed expeditiously.
Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were remitted to the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the punitive contempt order was set aside, while the contempt proceedings themselves were preserved and sent back for fresh adjudication by the High Court in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Even in contempt jurisdiction, a court must strictly comply with the procedure prescribed by law and the safeguards of fair hearing; a punishment imposed without such compliance is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
