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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

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

Court Fee - whether on refund of advance money or on entire sale agreement consideration - Specific performance of contract - suppression of material facts(previous litigations on the property) - contract rescinded - suit filed for refund of money - court fee is to be paid on refund claimed amount but not on entire sale agreement consideration = 2015 CHENNAI(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

it is clear that seeking relief of specific performance of the contract is different from seeking return of advance amount. It has been held that if a suit is filed without seeking specific performance of contract, but only for return of advance amount paid, subsequently, the plaint cannot be amended. 16. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pendency of various litigations, in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement for sale, hence, he rescind the contract and demanded the respondent for return of the advance amount.  At this stage, the Court below cannot go into the merits of the case for deciding the Court fees payable. The Court below has to consider the pleadings of the petitioner / plaintiff. As per the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pending litigation, in respec...
Read more