<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (2) TMI 831 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173603</link>
    <description>Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is triggered only when the court applies its mind to the material, finds a prima facie case of contempt, and decides to commence contempt proceedings by issuing notice to the alleged contemners to show cause why they should not be punished. A private application or an earlier request for notice is only an anterior step and does not amount to initiation. On the facts described, the show-cause notice reflected the court&#039;s decision to proceed, so the proceedings were treated as initiated on 6.1.1988 within the one-year period. The order dropping the contempt proceedings was therefore erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:45:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 831 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173603</link>
      <description>Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is triggered only when the court applies its mind to the material, finds a prima facie case of contempt, and decides to commence contempt proceedings by issuing notice to the alleged contemners to show cause why they should not be punished. A private application or an earlier request for notice is only an anterior step and does not amount to initiation. On the facts described, the show-cause notice reflected the court&#039;s decision to proceed, so the proceedings were treated as initiated on 6.1.1988 within the one-year period. The order dropping the contempt proceedings was therefore erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>