CONTEMPT OF COURT In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of contempt. Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules') have also stated how a statement has to be made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows: "7. (1) Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain: (a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged: (b) the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case; (c) the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same facts, if any, and the result thereof. (2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition. (3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in the contempt proceedings." It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as required under the aforesaid Rules. Unless the statements and averments are made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. More over, the allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on the allegations made with regard to possession. The Hon'ble First Court while passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession. Therefore, the allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier. The Hon'ble trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate, different order. This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order. Be that as it may, a mistake is a mistake. Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake cannot be allowed to remain. We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge ought not to have entertained the contempt application. Unless those allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore, the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned. Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction. The contempt application was also filed without having any foundation under the law. Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the contempt case shall not be proceeded with. - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

  CONTEMPT OF COURT
  In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment
with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of
contempt.  
Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 
Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules')  have also stated how a statement has to be
made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. 
Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows: 
 "7. (1)  Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain:
(a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or
petitioners and of the person charged:
(b)  the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts,
including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be
necessary for the proper determination of the case;
(c)  the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same
facts, if any, and the result thereof.
(2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession
or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file
such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with
the petition.
(3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in
the contempt proceedings." 
       It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as
required under the aforesaid Rules.  
Unless the statements and averments are
made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there
cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. 
More over, the
allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a
document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on
the allegations made with regard to possession. 
The Hon'ble First Court while
passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we
have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession. 
 Therefore, the
allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier.  
The Hon'ble
trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the
aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been
pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate,
different order. 
This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His
Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order.  
Be that
as it may, a mistake is a mistake.   Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake
cannot be allowed to remain.  
We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge
ought not to have entertained the contempt application.  Unless those
allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore,
the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned.
Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction.  The contempt
application was also filed without having any foundation under the law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the
contempt case shall not be proceeded with. - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more