Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by initiating a criminal complaint on the basis of the same file and proceedings that had been stayed by the Court's earlier order, thereby acting in wilful disobedience of that order.
Analysis: The order dated 12.04.2021 had specifically stayed the proceedings arising from the show cause notice and the underlying file number. The later complaint and sanction for prosecution were found to trace their foundation to the very same file and to the same factual narrative that had already been placed under stay. The Court held that the order was categorical and not capable of the restrictive interpretation suggested by the respondents. It also found that the respondents had suppressed material orders passed in the petitioner's favour and had attempted to over-reach the earlier restraint by pursuing prosecution through a different route. On these facts, the conduct was treated as deliberate and contumacious, satisfying the ingredients of civil contempt.
Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of civil contempt for wilful breach of the Court's earlier directions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a court has expressly stayed proceedings arising from a specified file or cause, a prosecution or complaint founded on the same file and factual foundation amounts to wilful disobedience if pursued in disregard of that stay.