1978 (3) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of the High Court. The Notice was issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed Under Section 17 of the Act, to show cause against the appellant's alleged liability to be punished Under Section 15. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this Court Under Section 19 of the Act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided by the High Court. Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie to this Court as a matter of right Under Section 19. 3. In our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Mere initiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question. This Court, for the first time, cannot be asked in such an appeal to decide whether the person proceeded against has committed contempt of the High Court or not. The matter has to be decided either finally or, may be even at an earlier stage an order is made, which does decide a contention raised by the alleged contemner asking the High Court to drop the proceeding. It is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 of the Constitution from an order initiating the proceeding. But that is entirely a different matter. What we are deciding in this case is that the present appeal filed Under Section 19(1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent. 4. We find some support to the view expressed by us above from the decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Orissa High Court MANU/SC/0076/1975MANU/SC/0076/1975 : 1976CriLJ944 where it has been held that no appeal lies to this Court Under Section 19 of the Act from an order rejecting the prayer of the alleged contemner for hearing the case piecemeal. 5. Mr. Lal placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra MANU/SC/0095/1974MANU/SC/0095/197....