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

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 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more