REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BAL THACKREY Appellant

V/S

HARISH PIMPALKHUTE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

S K SARKAR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE U P LUCKNOW VS. VINAY CHANDRA MISRA [REFERRED TO]
P N DUDA VS. P SHIV SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM PAL VS. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER AGRA VS. ROHTAS SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
L P MISRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PALLAV SHETH VS. CUSTODIAN [REFERRED TO]
J R PARASHAR ADVOCATE VS. PRASANT BHUSHAN ADVOCATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M S MANI [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. K SUBA RAO [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the courts own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 SCC 549.

(2.) The main issue for determination in these appeals is whether contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant suo motu by the court or by respondents. First we may note the background under which these matters were referred to a larger Bench.

(3.) Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta vs. K. Suba Rao and Anr. ILR (1974) 1 Del 1 issued following directions :

Click here to view full judgment.

BAL THACKREY Vs. HARISH PIMPALKHUTE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address