https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105037 An Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 retains contempt jurisdiction under section 17 because Article 323-A expressly permits Parliament to confer that power. The SC held that L. Chandra Kumar preserved the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but did not invalidate section 17 or make the Tribunal's contempt power otiose merely because its decisions remain subject to judicial review. Section 30 of the Act was held not to displace the specific contempt power, and the appellate structure under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not undermine its operation. Accordingly, section 17 remains valid and operative within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105037 An Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 retains contempt jurisdiction under section 17 because Article 323-A expressly permits Parliament to confer that power. The SC held that L. Chandra Kumar preserved the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but did not invalidate section 17 or make the Tribunal's contempt power otiose merely because its decisions remain subject to judicial review. Section 30 of the Act was held not to displace the specific contempt power, and the appellate structure under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not undermine its operation. Accordingly, section 17 remains valid and operative within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105037