Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for In Re: V. C. Mishra VS . ...
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 1375 : The Court exercised its jurisdiction to direct the issuance of a notice to the respondent to show cause why action should not be taken against him for contempt, based on its prima facie satisfaction of the respondent''''s statements constituting contempt. This indicates that a notice for contempt must be issued only after the court has prima facie satisfaction that contempt has been committed.Checking relevance for ECL Finance Ltd. VS Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati...
2018 3 Supreme 397 : The legal document establishes that a Single Judge of the High Court may issue notice in a contempt petition based on prima facie satisfaction regarding the commission of contempt. It clarifies that observations made by the Single Judge while issuing notice are only for the purpose of determining whether the contempt petition needs to be considered on merits, and such observations do not constitute an order on the merits. Therefore, issuing notice without recording prima facie satisfaction would not be in accordance with the procedure, as the law requires a prima facie assessment before issuing notice. The document explicitly states that Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not attracted when the Single Judge''''s observations are merely for prima facie satisfaction, indicating that such a step is a necessary preliminary stage in the process. Hence, notice should not be issued without recording prima facie satisfaction about the commission of contempt.Checking relevance for AMICUS CURIAE VS PRASHANT BHUSHAN...
2010 0 Supreme(SC) 576 : The court held that contempt proceedings are maintainable only after prima facie satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for taking action on its own motion. In this case, the Hon''''ble Chief Justice of India directed the issuance of notice to the respondents after finding that a case for issuance of notice had been made out, indicating that prima facie satisfaction must be recorded before issuing notice for contempt. The court emphasized that the issuance of notice was based on a prima facie finding of sufficient grounds, and the proceeding was initiated on suo motu cognizance only after such satisfaction was reached.Checking relevance for Deepak Kumar Prahladka VS Chief Justice Prabha Shanker Mishra...
2004 3 Supreme 773 : Before a person is held guilty of contempt of court, he is entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing. The court held that even though the averments in the contempt petitions were prima facie contemptuous and tended to scandalize the court, the appellant was entitled to a notice and reasonable opportunity before being convicted of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. The absence of notice and opportunity rendered the impugned order liable to be set aside, establishing that notice must be issued prior to conviction, regardless of prima facie satisfaction about the commission of contempt.Checking relevance for Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction...
Checking relevance for Om Prakash Jaiswal VS D. K. Mittal...
2000 1 Supreme 574 : No, a notice for contempt should not be issued to respondents without recording prima facie satisfaction about the commission of contempt. According to the judgment, proceedings for contempt are only considered initiated when the Court has formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished. Issuing a show cause notice for the purpose of initiating proceedings (i.e., to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated) does not amount to initiation of contempt proceedings. Such a notice is anterior to initiation and is issued when the Court has not yet satisfied itself that a case for contempt exists. Only when the Court has applied its mind to the facts and material and formed a prima facie opinion that contempt has been committed, can it be said to have initiated proceedings by issuing a notice to show cause why the contemner should not be punished.
