DEEPAK HASTIR Vs. S P AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The teamed Single Judge on 11.09.2003, in a contempt proceeding, passed an order. The relevant portion reads as under:

(2.) It is clear that no case was made out. Notice of contempt was discharged. Following the Supreme Court decision of the three learned Judges reported in (1975) 3 SCC 535 in the case of Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra, Chief Justice of the prissa High Court, in the case of Laxmi Narayan vs DDA (Contempt Appeal (C) 11/2004 decided on 12.07.2004) we have taken the view that, in such a situation, no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as there is no decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held as under:

(3.) The learned counsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Day Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others JT 2000(4) SC 629, the appeal shall be maintainable. However in para 13, the court pointed out that "in the present proceedings the question whether appeal under Section 19 is maintainable or not is not required to be decided finally as, in our view, facts of this case are grossly inadequate and the contempt proceedings were not required to be initiated at all." As such, this decision is of no help to the appellant. In any case, we do not find any observations contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra (supra).