https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272608 A special appeal was held maintainable against a notice order in contempt proceedings because the impugned order raised a jurisdictional controversy affecting rights and carried sufficient finality. The Court also held that a single Judge could not entertain a contempt application or issue notice unless contempt matters had been assigned to that Judge under the roster fixed by the Chief Justice. Although contempt power belongs to the High Court as a court of record, its exercise remains subject to constitutional allocation of work. The impugned order was therefore set aside as without jurisdiction, while the question whether contempt had actually been committed was left to the Judge having roster for contempt matters. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2018 16:31:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272608 A special appeal was held maintainable against a notice order in contempt proceedings because the impugned order raised a jurisdictional controversy affecting rights and carried sufficient finality. The Court also held that a single Judge could not entertain a contempt application or issue notice unless contempt matters had been assigned to that Judge under the roster fixed by the Chief Justice. Although contempt power belongs to the High Court as a court of record, its exercise remains subject to constitutional allocation of work. The impugned order was therefore set aside as without jurisdiction, while the question whether contempt had actually been committed was left to the Judge having roster for contempt matters. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272608