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>Opponent's Actions Not Contempt; Legal Proceedings Stayed</h1> <h3>Hrishikesh Sanyal Versus A.P. Bagchi</h3> The court found that the actions of the opposite party did not amount to contempt of court. The court discharged the notice and did not order any costs. ... - Issues Involved:1. Contempt of Court2. Application under Section 476, Criminal P.C.3. Complaint under Section 500, I.P.C.Detailed Analysis:Contempt of Court:The applicant contended that the opposite party's actions, namely the application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and the complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., amounted to contempt of court. The argument was that these actions were intended to exert pressure on the applicant and interfere with the administration of justice in the pending guardianship proceedings. The court referred to historical cases to define contempt, emphasizing that actions calculated to prejudice a fair trial or exert undue pressure on a party in ongoing judicial proceedings could constitute contempt. However, the court found no direct threat or intimidation by the opposite party that would compel the applicant to withdraw any pleas in the guardianship proceedings.Application under Section 476, Criminal P.C.:The court examined whether the opposite party's application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., constituted contempt. It was noted that the opposite party moved the District Judge of Allahabad to inquire into the allegations in the applicant's affidavit, which he claimed were false. The court concluded that this action did not amount to contempt because it was within the opposite party's rights to draw the court's attention to potentially false allegations. The responsibility for any formal complaint lay with the court after its inquiry.Complaint under Section 500, I.P.C.:The court addressed the complaint filed by the opposite party under Section 500, I.P.C., for defamation. It was argued that this complaint was intended to harass the applicant and prejudice the guardianship proceedings. However, the court found no evidence that the opposite party's actions were meant to intimidate the applicant into withdrawing his pleas. The court noted that the opposite party had exercised his legal right to file a complaint without issuing any prior threats. The court opined that the applicant would not necessarily be handicapped in the guardianship proceedings due to the defamation complaint and that any competent court would likely stay the defamation proceedings if requested.Conclusion:The court concluded that neither the application under Section 476, Criminal P.C., nor the complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., amounted to contempt of court. The court discharged the notice and made no order as to costs. However, it directed that the proceedings under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and the complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., be stayed until the conclusion of the guardianship case in the District Judge's Court of Benares.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
