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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more