<?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>1951 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292771</link>
    <description>Panchayati Adalats constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and exercising statutory adjudicatory powers fall within contempt jurisdiction as courts subordinate to the High Court. Article 227 preserves broad judicial superintendence, including control over wrongful assumption, excess, or refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Publication of disputed allegations as established facts while related proceedings are pending or imminent may amount to contempt where it is likely to prejudice parties or poison the adjudicatory atmosphere. Apologies may mitigate consequences; the notice was withdrawn against two parties, while the editor bore costs for contempt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:31:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292771</link>
      <description>Panchayati Adalats constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and exercising statutory adjudicatory powers fall within contempt jurisdiction as courts subordinate to the High Court. Article 227 preserves broad judicial superintendence, including control over wrongful assumption, excess, or refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Publication of disputed allegations as established facts while related proceedings are pending or imminent may amount to contempt where it is likely to prejudice parties or poison the adjudicatory atmosphere. Apologies may mitigate consequences; the notice was withdrawn against two parties, while the editor bore costs for contempt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>