Contempt of Courts Act Sec.10 &12 - Non-initiation of contempt proceedings under Or.39, rule 2 A C.P.C. - Limitation for initiation of Contempt Case - starts from the date of knowledge -this court either on complaint or suo motu, can take cognizance of the contempt and punish the contemnors. - Third party, if committed contempt, can be impleaded and proceeded against. - 2015 A.P.(2000)MSKLAWREPORTS




<CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - - Ss.10 & 12 - -  Contempt of Courts Rules - -    
R.24.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 R.2A - - Limitation for initiation of Contempt
case - - "Initiation" meaning of - - Laid down.

 Non-initiation of Contempt proceedings under Or.39 R.2A does not bar initiation
under Ss.10 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.

Third party, if committed contempt, can be impleaded and proceeded against.

>HELD:

Limitation for initiation of contempt case starts from the date of knowledge of
alleged violation of the order of the competent court.  The initiation of
contempt proceedings includes issuing of notice by this Court calling upon the
contemnors to show cause why the contemnor shall not be punished.  From this, it
has to be presumed that the court has taken cognizance of the contempt though it
might not have admitted the contempt case.... In order to see that substantial
justice is done and dignity of the court is protected, this court either on
complaint or suo motu, can take cognizance of the contempt and punish the
contemnors.

Where the order of this Court has been disobeyed and the contempt proceedings
initiated, which requires evidence for adjudication, in such a case this Courtcan proceed to record evidence on its own or direct the court below to record
the evidence and send its report and thereafter to take action in the matter.
Merely because the contempt proceedings are not initiated under Order 39 Rule 2-
A of Civil Procedure Code, it does not bar initiation of the contempt
proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
If a third party has committed the act of contempt in a proceeding pending
before this Court, proceedings can be initiated against such a party and deal
him in accordance with law, by bringing him on record by way of impleading.- 2015 A.P.(2000)MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

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

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS