https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169699 Article 215 of the Constitution vests High Courts with an inherent power as courts of record to punish for contempt, and that jurisdiction is preserved, not created, by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. On that basis, the six-year limitation in Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code did not govern recovery of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings, because the contempt power does not derive from the Penal Code or the General Clauses Act. The High Court could also apply the available security deposit toward satisfaction of the unpaid fine as an incidental power necessary to effectuate its contempt jurisdiction. The limitation objection therefore failed, and the adjustment of the deposit was upheld. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169699 Article 215 of the Constitution vests High Courts with an inherent power as courts of record to punish for contempt, and that jurisdiction is preserved, not created, by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. On that basis, the six-year limitation in Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code did not govern recovery of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings, because the contempt power does not derive from the Penal Code or the General Clauses Act. The High Court could also apply the available security deposit toward satisfaction of the unpaid fine as an incidental power necessary to effectuate its contempt jurisdiction. The limitation objection therefore failed, and the adjustment of the deposit was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169699