Dear Sri Asthana,
1. Just in brief, your email on several Rulings on Contempt petition is an excellent collection, drives home many points forcefully & convincingly I send my fairly detailed reactions proactive in later edition.
2. I must congratulate u for this lucid,educative, indepth presentation. The more one goes into the labyrinth of legal definitions & judges & others interpretation, one feels how nice the judicial system is,shorn of any malpractice or backdoor interferences, set to nullify such verdict pronounciations. In fact I mentioned in one of early emails 3 years before, how even non-legal persona have gained immense knowledge,more so after IA after IAs Affidavits after Affidavits & CCP after CCP & SLP after SLPs,CWP after CWPs, Clarificatory orders after Clarificatory orders.
Earlier I used to trace & record in MY Archives plentiful such delineations, which indeed have expanded my horizons of legal knowledge, I grew wiser year after year, my silvery hair yet to turn Golden !!, thanx to KMLA, the warrior, giving lot of work & assignment to us, as ultimately, the goal & objective is ONLY TO BENEFIT ALL GROUPS OF PENSIONERS WITH MAXIMUM BENEFIT, HAVING, IN OUR POCKETS,THE MIDAS TOUCH OF A GOLDEN HANDSHAKE, WHICH SHOULD NOT PROVE ELUSIVE, AS SOME PESSIMISTS HAVE STARTED TELLING & WRITING & indeed, therefore, tremendous responsibility on your part to weigh options with even informal consultations with our Sr Counsel Sri P.S. Narasimha by you & Sri RK Singh in particular.
3. In fact, I found these Pearls you sent yesterday night very very thrilling & enlightening on some important as also glaring but subtle differences between CCP & Execution petition in same court.
I even felt at the outset, that had you circulated these before CCP 760/2010,many doubting Thomases,after that travesty of justice by great & Hon RSChauhan would not have sent or thrown arrows & dig at all of us for a so-called misadventure, looked at from their prism of light, as umpteen phone calls,with a pitch of disappointment & frustration were demonstrating,of course, in anguish,which we could assuage but wanted a firm & fair remedy to wrest back & scale & score a Final Victory.
4. More so, in the background of Bankers email, I sent yesterday from redoubtable Sri BG Raithatha, Rajkot who is also a 24 hour servant & savant for Union Bank of India, he sadly mentions, I am shocked, about the fate of pension upgradation BUT ONLY PROSPECTIVE.
U must tear off that mask of LIC & MOF & secure retrospective from the date when DISCRIMINATION arose for Dr as also pension upgradation from 1/12/2001 or 1/1/2004, as u said to me recently that maximum benefits can flow from 3 yrs back from date of CWP 654/2007.
Edition 2:
Dear Sri Asthana,
A) 1st we try to delineate & understand the nuances & intricacies of Contempt Petition from your 5 page writeup. Linking loose ends with the dynamics of court craft & procedures, we endeavour to arrive at some fair & dependable solution, waiting to be heralded or supplemented in Jaipur HC or Supreme Court.
1) The 1st principle you have quoted --- disobedience of the Court’s Order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which judgements are based to ensure civilized life in society. It adds that the Verdict has to be followed & complied with --- This is vital for us, as CCP arose from this basic postulate that LIC was delaying & dithering, took a partial & circumscribed view of DR ONLY & that too LIC Affidavit was incomplete, incoherent, calculations were not correct etc.
Greetings & best wishes, RBKISHORE
Edition 2:
Dear Sri Asthana,
A) 1st we try to delineate & understand the nuances & intricacies of Contempt Petition from your 5 page writeup. Linking loose ends with the dynamics of court craft & procedures, we endeavour to arrive at some fair & dependable solution, waiting to be heralded or supplemented in Jaipur HC or Supreme Court.
1) The 1st principle you have quoted --- disobedience of the Court’s Order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which judgements are based to ensure civilized life in society. It adds that the Verdict has to be followed & complied with --- This is vital for us, as CCP arose from this basic postulate that LIC was delaying & dithering, took a partial & circumscribed view of DR ONLY & that too LIC Affidavit was incomplete, incoherent, calculations were not correct etc.
U have pointed out several acts of omission & commission in your Counter Affidavit, which was actually hailed as a wonderful, incisive & indisputable one rebutting each & every action of LIC & clearly telling the CCP Court and driving home the violations done, the haphazard & carefree 4 line LIC Affidavit ignoring the OTHER issues on which also the Hon Judge raised queries & replies.
2) CCP Court proceedings are primarily a matter between Court & Contemnor. They do not partake the character of a traditional lis.CP is not a disoute between 2 parties but between Court & Contemnor.
Petitioner is only an Informant, as later ur email points out, Court decides whether contempt exists & issues due Notices. This itself adds to our plea enough strength & exhibits due action to assist the court to come to a right & impartial conclusion about CONTEMPT part only WITHOUT DISRUPTING IN ANY WAY the tone, tenor & force of the Hon SJ order of so-called twin benefits.
This Hon’ble Court on 30/8/2013 issued show causes notices of the Contempt Petition to the Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and were directed to be given Dasti, which the Petitioner served on 19/9/2013.
Along with this notice, the Petitioner had also sent a copy of the application for implementation of the Judgment dated 12/1/2010.
Besides this, the Petitioner through his Advocate Dr. Abhinav Sharma had also sent the copy of the application for implementation of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 to all the three individual Respondents by speed post.
3) Petitioner is not in the position of a Prosecutor but simply assisting Contempt Court (CC) so that dignity & majesty of court is maintained & upheld.
So, CC wants Petitioner to present facts which have gone wrong with the Contemnors, the ways in which variance between Hon SJ original judgement & actual happenings took place, the violations noticed, the omissions in their acts, the damage done etc. Plentiful data & all other relevant facts impinging on these variations were nicely reflected in CounterAffidavit.
4) Disobedience of decree, order, direction, writ to be subject matter & not the reasons ie Judgement.
This is a vital provision & law book interpretation with case laws in support thereof. That it was, when cost was imposed by this Hon’ble Court, the Respondents filed reply, which is wholly vague, uncertain and not acceptable to be correct and does not relieve the Respondents of their act of Contempt.
LIC cannot in anyway disregard or disrespect the Hon SJ, Jaipur HC verdict, as it has reached finality. They cannot disown or disobey the verdict. The judgement has to be fulfilled in toto.
5) Once Court has ordered CCP proceedings, cognizance is taken & Court becomes a party & as such the same cannot be dismissed without giving REASONS as to why contemnor is not to be punished. So, PETITIONER has NO LOCUS TO WITHDRAW nor ON HIS WITHDRAWAL THE CCP CAN BE DISMISSED.
This is very very important in our case, especially viewing & x-raying the 13/2/2014 CCP Order, which caused wide anguish & disappointment. Hon Judge R.S.Chauhan, when there is no provision for Petitioner to withdraw, cannot take the line of least resistance & issue a tame order, without substance & more so without giving valid reasons, as to why Contemnor is not to be punished.
I felt when Judgements of Courts are lying without acceptance, not honouring, not implementing, delaying 5 years & more, this constitutes serious & wilful contempt. Allowing such parties to wriggle out constitutes missing the wood for the tree by Hon & Learned Judge & not understanding the damage being done to Sr & Super Sr Citizens & Elders /Pensioners who are waiting for 12/13 years to reap the fruits of LIC Board Resolution & connected judgement,where especially all the parties, including UOI were present & any deviation Contemnor tries to present & project, Hon Judge can sift the contents of Both Affidavit & Counter Affidavit & be bold to dictate a perfect, neutral, principled Order, which only all were yearning for but that did not happen.
6) CC cannot reach to a different finding nor can it reverse its earlier decision which formed the subject matter of CP. CC & Contemnor are players mainly & complainant is a mere Informant.
It means CC has no locus standi to sit in judgement over Hon SJ order dt 12/1/2010. Non-implementation of Hon SJ verdict gave rise to Contempt & so CC cannot reverse that verdict or order.
This itself perhaps leads to a Remedy in the form of an Execution Petition, which you have filed in your name under Articles 215, 226 & 227 of Constitution with specific request & forceful plea to Jaipur HC, that as Hon SJ verdict has reached finality, with so many successes in many Courts listed & also the forceful – NO STAY order in all the 3 HCs — Jaipur, Chandigarh & Delhi — it is eminently desirable that law should help the litigant who approached the Court under CWP 654/2007 exclusively on pension upgradation with successive wage revision. The writs must be thoroughly, professionally & competently handled.
In four SLPs said to have been filed by the SLPs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court though granted leave but in very specific terms refused to give any stay on the implementation of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 on 30/9/2013.
7) Court does not grant relief nor review its earlier order. “ Obedience to earlier decision is a gospel truth & irresistible”. When dealing with application, Courts primarily find out whether order passed has attained finality & ii)whether same is complied with or not . Court does not intend to reopen issues which could have been raised in original proceedings. Nor it embarks upon other questions including plea of equities which falls for consideration only in original proceedings.
2) CCP Court proceedings are primarily a matter between Court & Contemnor. They do not partake the character of a traditional lis.CP is not a disoute between 2 parties but between Court & Contemnor.
Petitioner is only an Informant, as later ur email points out, Court decides whether contempt exists & issues due Notices. This itself adds to our plea enough strength & exhibits due action to assist the court to come to a right & impartial conclusion about CONTEMPT part only WITHOUT DISRUPTING IN ANY WAY the tone, tenor & force of the Hon SJ order of so-called twin benefits.
This Hon’ble Court on 30/8/2013 issued show causes notices of the Contempt Petition to the Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and were directed to be given Dasti, which the Petitioner served on 19/9/2013.
Along with this notice, the Petitioner had also sent a copy of the application for implementation of the Judgment dated 12/1/2010.
Besides this, the Petitioner through his Advocate Dr. Abhinav Sharma had also sent the copy of the application for implementation of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 to all the three individual Respondents by speed post.
3) Petitioner is not in the position of a Prosecutor but simply assisting Contempt Court (CC) so that dignity & majesty of court is maintained & upheld.
So, CC wants Petitioner to present facts which have gone wrong with the Contemnors, the ways in which variance between Hon SJ original judgement & actual happenings took place, the violations noticed, the omissions in their acts, the damage done etc. Plentiful data & all other relevant facts impinging on these variations were nicely reflected in CounterAffidavit.
4) Disobedience of decree, order, direction, writ to be subject matter & not the reasons ie Judgement.
This is a vital provision & law book interpretation with case laws in support thereof. That it was, when cost was imposed by this Hon’ble Court, the Respondents filed reply, which is wholly vague, uncertain and not acceptable to be correct and does not relieve the Respondents of their act of Contempt.
LIC cannot in anyway disregard or disrespect the Hon SJ, Jaipur HC verdict, as it has reached finality. They cannot disown or disobey the verdict. The judgement has to be fulfilled in toto.
5) Once Court has ordered CCP proceedings, cognizance is taken & Court becomes a party & as such the same cannot be dismissed without giving REASONS as to why contemnor is not to be punished. So, PETITIONER has NO LOCUS TO WITHDRAW nor ON HIS WITHDRAWAL THE CCP CAN BE DISMISSED.
This is very very important in our case, especially viewing & x-raying the 13/2/2014 CCP Order, which caused wide anguish & disappointment. Hon Judge R.S.Chauhan, when there is no provision for Petitioner to withdraw, cannot take the line of least resistance & issue a tame order, without substance & more so without giving valid reasons, as to why Contemnor is not to be punished.
I felt when Judgements of Courts are lying without acceptance, not honouring, not implementing, delaying 5 years & more, this constitutes serious & wilful contempt. Allowing such parties to wriggle out constitutes missing the wood for the tree by Hon & Learned Judge & not understanding the damage being done to Sr & Super Sr Citizens & Elders /Pensioners who are waiting for 12/13 years to reap the fruits of LIC Board Resolution & connected judgement,where especially all the parties, including UOI were present & any deviation Contemnor tries to present & project, Hon Judge can sift the contents of Both Affidavit & Counter Affidavit & be bold to dictate a perfect, neutral, principled Order, which only all were yearning for but that did not happen.
6) CC cannot reach to a different finding nor can it reverse its earlier decision which formed the subject matter of CP. CC & Contemnor are players mainly & complainant is a mere Informant.
It means CC has no locus standi to sit in judgement over Hon SJ order dt 12/1/2010. Non-implementation of Hon SJ verdict gave rise to Contempt & so CC cannot reverse that verdict or order.
This itself perhaps leads to a Remedy in the form of an Execution Petition, which you have filed in your name under Articles 215, 226 & 227 of Constitution with specific request & forceful plea to Jaipur HC, that as Hon SJ verdict has reached finality, with so many successes in many Courts listed & also the forceful – NO STAY order in all the 3 HCs — Jaipur, Chandigarh & Delhi — it is eminently desirable that law should help the litigant who approached the Court under CWP 654/2007 exclusively on pension upgradation with successive wage revision. The writs must be thoroughly, professionally & competently handled.
In four SLPs said to have been filed by the SLPs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court though granted leave but in very specific terms refused to give any stay on the implementation of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 on 30/9/2013.
7) Court does not grant relief nor review its earlier order. “ Obedience to earlier decision is a gospel truth & irresistible”. When dealing with application, Courts primarily find out whether order passed has attained finality & ii)whether same is complied with or not . Court does not intend to reopen issues which could have been raised in original proceedings. Nor it embarks upon other questions including plea of equities which falls for consideration only in original proceedings.
Court is not concerned with whether original order was right or wrong. Court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same & can’t ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. In short, not do anything which would amount to exercising its review jurisdiction. So,from all angles & this crystal clear elucidation,so assertive & so definitive, it is that Hon SJ Jaipur Judgement is intact on all counts & cannot be dislodged. The erudite breakthrough judgement stands unassailable like a Rock of Gibralter.
8) Disobedience of order or directions, not reasons thereof,the judgement
Already covered in Item 1 & 4.
9) i) Mere pretence of compliance will not persuade Court to refrain from exercising its Contempt power, especially when contemnor committed a fraud upon Court under the guise of compliance. It looks as though this provision is inserted, exclusively for organizations like LIC, doing everything possible under the sun to outwit poor pensioner litigants who are in their advanced age, waiting for redemption, that too after winning a stellar verdict citing many case laws & their application to pension upgradation with successive wage revision. All are aware that CCP 760/2010 is in connection with CWP 654/2007 which was exclusively for pension upgradation & it is an irony of fate that, in spite of a clear & unambiguous Counter Affidavit, not a single line found a place in reply from LIC in its affidavit. How dare they flout & how dare they escape.
In this context, the CCP 760/2010 order dt 13/2/2014 looks to be antithetical to this salient & robust provision & this was nullified by Hon Judge without valid reason, but quietly said -- dismissed as withdrawn.
9) ii) CC has a limited jurisdiction.Concern is whether decision in question is complied or not.
8) Disobedience of order or directions, not reasons thereof,the judgement
Already covered in Item 1 & 4.
9) i) Mere pretence of compliance will not persuade Court to refrain from exercising its Contempt power, especially when contemnor committed a fraud upon Court under the guise of compliance. It looks as though this provision is inserted, exclusively for organizations like LIC, doing everything possible under the sun to outwit poor pensioner litigants who are in their advanced age, waiting for redemption, that too after winning a stellar verdict citing many case laws & their application to pension upgradation with successive wage revision. All are aware that CCP 760/2010 is in connection with CWP 654/2007 which was exclusively for pension upgradation & it is an irony of fate that, in spite of a clear & unambiguous Counter Affidavit, not a single line found a place in reply from LIC in its affidavit. How dare they flout & how dare they escape.
In this context, the CCP 760/2010 order dt 13/2/2014 looks to be antithetical to this salient & robust provision & this was nullified by Hon Judge without valid reason, but quietly said -- dismissed as withdrawn.
9) ii) CC has a limited jurisdiction.Concern is whether decision in question is complied or not.
So, Petitioner has no locus to continue or withdraw contempt for any reason & it is for court to decide whether contempt is committed or not.
May be as a general tool,CP has limited objective or results,but can be a force to bring the Contemnor to senses & making him run to fulfil & honourably comply with the Court Order. But there have been cases, & recently also, we circulated Vijaya Bank Chairman who on summons appeared before the CC & had to agree to KTKA Hon Judge Order in a CCP, ordering Vijaya Bank to pay pension to VRS retirees within 2 months of order, failing which 9% interest shall be added. So, CCP can also be a valuable tool to correct injustices heaped on litigants when handled with care.
Further, it looks that when in CWP 654/2007, application dt 14/8/2013 was filed, where important contents of CWP 654/2007 were narrated & the Court has taken cognizance of & then only issued notices.
10) Doctrine of Substantive compliance meets the necessity of exhibiting of obedience to Court .When compliance is halfhearted & institutions want to circumvent,the Court will demand compliance of order by letter & spirit & failing such compliance, may impose appropriate penalty.
May be as a general tool,CP has limited objective or results,but can be a force to bring the Contemnor to senses & making him run to fulfil & honourably comply with the Court Order. But there have been cases, & recently also, we circulated Vijaya Bank Chairman who on summons appeared before the CC & had to agree to KTKA Hon Judge Order in a CCP, ordering Vijaya Bank to pay pension to VRS retirees within 2 months of order, failing which 9% interest shall be added. So, CCP can also be a valuable tool to correct injustices heaped on litigants when handled with care.
Further, it looks that when in CWP 654/2007, application dt 14/8/2013 was filed, where important contents of CWP 654/2007 were narrated & the Court has taken cognizance of & then only issued notices.
10) Doctrine of Substantive compliance meets the necessity of exhibiting of obedience to Court .When compliance is halfhearted & institutions want to circumvent,the Court will demand compliance of order by letter & spirit & failing such compliance, may impose appropriate penalty.
The CC has jurisdiction to see if orders of Court has been deliberately & willfully violated & where there is avoidance of compliance & implementation,Court cannot be a mere onlooker & enforces the order in lis.
Hon CC Jaipur,while passing the order dt 13/2/2014 has ignored the settled laws.Here it is portrayed that CCP can also be an effective tool to extract a positive order in f/o the litigant Petitioner.As in the case of tax laws, where loopholes are there,CAs utilize nicely by so many niceties & get lot of concession under various provisions to reduce tax burden.
Here it is reverse, stringent provisions & existing case laws, even if few,will fetch dividends in f/o petitioners.There has been no substantive compliance, nay a haphazard & incoherent & incomplete compliance & even earlier order of Hon. CCP Judge itself was not complied with.
11) 30/10/2012 LIC gave an undertaking & admitted they will comply with the judgement but neglected the said undertaking indefinitely. Unless oral submissions are taperecorded, this will not happen & anytime any party can say that they never said that.Remedy has to be found out. Even after SC Bench clarificatory order dt 17/10/2012 –retiral benefits from the date of eligibility viz.date of retirement,only slow & sluggish activity was noticed.
12) So, this behavior of courts comes under definition of Civil contempt , Sec 2B, of Contempt of Courts Act especially wilful disobedience.Courts have knowledge of obligations undertaken for compliance but avoided.It cannot be ruled out that there is mens rea in present case.
When evidence aplenty is available, to have lost the moorings & to have swerved on the wrong side, & instead of punishing the contemnor found guilty of contempt, virtually handing them an escape route & compelling the Petitioner & complainant to approach the Jaipur HC to seek a remedy is the height of misplaced justice. Even a blind man would have easily fixed the issue & said the contempt is of Elephantine proportions.
13) Respondent has not cared even to reply in affidavit order dt 22/1/2014, the steps taken to implement Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 & connected Verdict dt 12/1/2010. Respondent’s silence on these orders is a flagrant & willful disobedience & amounts to fresh Contempt. Even this betrayal has been ignored by Court ,though clearly pointed out. LIC was afraid to narrate their own SECRET letter dt 31/12/2001 to Addl Secretary,MOF that they desire to merge pensions also at suitable CPIndex to protect intergenerational relativity in pension. Dignity & authority of the court have to be respected & preserved at all times.Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our Constitutional scheme will give way.
14) SC has held that initiating a CCP is not a substitute for execution proceedings, though at times that purpose might also be achieved. Patna HC DB held that Execution Proceedings & Contempt proceedings are independent of one another & they operate in 2 different fields or spheres. Execution petition filed by affected party against his adversary is addressed to effect enforcement of rights & liabilities created under the decree.
11) 30/10/2012 LIC gave an undertaking & admitted they will comply with the judgement but neglected the said undertaking indefinitely. Unless oral submissions are taperecorded, this will not happen & anytime any party can say that they never said that.Remedy has to be found out. Even after SC Bench clarificatory order dt 17/10/2012 –retiral benefits from the date of eligibility viz.date of retirement,only slow & sluggish activity was noticed.
12) So, this behavior of courts comes under definition of Civil contempt , Sec 2B, of Contempt of Courts Act especially wilful disobedience.Courts have knowledge of obligations undertaken for compliance but avoided.It cannot be ruled out that there is mens rea in present case.
When evidence aplenty is available, to have lost the moorings & to have swerved on the wrong side, & instead of punishing the contemnor found guilty of contempt, virtually handing them an escape route & compelling the Petitioner & complainant to approach the Jaipur HC to seek a remedy is the height of misplaced justice. Even a blind man would have easily fixed the issue & said the contempt is of Elephantine proportions.
13) Respondent has not cared even to reply in affidavit order dt 22/1/2014, the steps taken to implement Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 & connected Verdict dt 12/1/2010. Respondent’s silence on these orders is a flagrant & willful disobedience & amounts to fresh Contempt. Even this betrayal has been ignored by Court ,though clearly pointed out. LIC was afraid to narrate their own SECRET letter dt 31/12/2001 to Addl Secretary,MOF that they desire to merge pensions also at suitable CPIndex to protect intergenerational relativity in pension. Dignity & authority of the court have to be respected & preserved at all times.Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our Constitutional scheme will give way.
14) SC has held that initiating a CCP is not a substitute for execution proceedings, though at times that purpose might also be achieved. Patna HC DB held that Execution Proceedings & Contempt proceedings are independent of one another & they operate in 2 different fields or spheres. Execution petition filed by affected party against his adversary is addressed to effect enforcement of rights & liabilities created under the decree.
CP is initiated to uphold prestige & dignity of the court &majesty of law. So, pendency of Execution petition is no bar to initiating of CP so long as such petitions are filed to vindicate public confidence in efficacy of judicial system. So, from this elucidation of various rulings on contempt petitions, Execution proceedings are eminently desirable & be pursued with vigour & solid, error-free presentation to annex in clear terms the twin benefits we are proclaiming loud & clear but the Voice of Reason and Justice from Hon Jaipur HC must be palatable in full tallying with our expectations, for which we all are fighting hard with persistence for many many years.
15) Mere appeal to SC will not automatically operate as a stay of order under appeal, in the absence of a stay order & hence the original order continues to be operative & noncompliance of that order in such circumstances is tantamount to fresh contempt.
Clear & emphatic & included in Counter affidavit too. Article 136 of the Constitution was meant to be used rarely, and it vests discretionary power on the Supreme Court to admit appeals even if the High Courts did not grant “leave to appeal”. But the Supreme Court has been using this discretion indiscriminately for decades, allowing the dockets to bulge. More than 40,000 cases used this gateway in the past year alone.
15) Mere appeal to SC will not automatically operate as a stay of order under appeal, in the absence of a stay order & hence the original order continues to be operative & noncompliance of that order in such circumstances is tantamount to fresh contempt.
Clear & emphatic & included in Counter affidavit too. Article 136 of the Constitution was meant to be used rarely, and it vests discretionary power on the Supreme Court to admit appeals even if the High Courts did not grant “leave to appeal”. But the Supreme Court has been using this discretion indiscriminately for decades, allowing the dockets to bulge. More than 40,000 cases used this gateway in the past year alone.
In the Gramin Bank judgment, the judges remarked that the bank’s SLP was admitted “luckily”. Though it is a sarcastic observation, it is an indirect admission by judges themselves that more than substantial questions of law, what matter are the composition of Benches, gift of the garbed, or even the Delhi ambience. The final decision is little better, as the judges add that “may be due to the ill-luck of the bank, the matter is before us”.
Two chances to appeal should normally be enough to decide a case. The third or fourth appeals to the high courts or the Supreme Court by a person who has not even won once before should be rejected at the threshold. The present disarray in the judicial system simply does not justify another gamble by the rich or powerful, howsoever eminent the counsel may be, and howsoever incompetent the judge below is perceived to be.
As it is, even in the Supreme Court, dozens of Review petitions are summarily dismissed in chambers every day during lunch time. Some of them return wearing another hat called “Curative petition” and suffer the same fate.
16)Chapter XX , Rule 1 of SC Rules lay down that mere filing of an appeal cannot & will not stay operation of earlier order & in our case the Stay has been totally rejected in all the cases.The intention of the SC is apparent that it desires that the judgment is implemented & this is clear from the wordings of the order.
16)Chapter XX , Rule 1 of SC Rules lay down that mere filing of an appeal cannot & will not stay operation of earlier order & in our case the Stay has been totally rejected in all the cases.The intention of the SC is apparent that it desires that the judgment is implemented & this is clear from the wordings of the order.
The law is very clear that merely by filing SLP, the proceedings for execution of decree/order do not get stayed. In this connection Order XX Rule (1) of the Supreme Court Rules also provides:
The filing of an appeal will not prevent execution of the decree or order appealed against but the Court may, subject to such terms and conditions, as it may think fit to impose, order a stay of execution of the decree or order, or order a stay of proceedings in any case under appeal to the Court.
Similarly Order 41 Rule 5 provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from, except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree.
The Supreme Court in identical situation has laid the following rule: A subordinate Court or Tribunal refusing to follow a High Court decision where a petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against that High Court decision was pending, held amounts to deliberate disobedience and wilful disregard of the High Court and is contempt of Court.”
The following observations of Hon’ble SC in a recent judgement is quite apt in our situations as well (though subject matter is different but the tenet is equally applicable):
“Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors.
[Contempt Petition (Civil) No.224 of 2011]
[Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Courts, if they are to serve the cause of justice, must have the power to secure obedience to its orders to prevent interference with the proceedings and to protect the reputation of the legal system, its components and its personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored investigation. The court is duty bound to protect the dignity and authority of this Court, at any cost, or else, the entire administration of justice will crumble and law and order would be a casualty.
............................J. (G.S. Singhvi)
New Delhi December 9,2013............................J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
R.B.KISHORE : VP,AIRIEF :
The filing of an appeal will not prevent execution of the decree or order appealed against but the Court may, subject to such terms and conditions, as it may think fit to impose, order a stay of execution of the decree or order, or order a stay of proceedings in any case under appeal to the Court.
Similarly Order 41 Rule 5 provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from, except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree.
The Supreme Court in identical situation has laid the following rule: A subordinate Court or Tribunal refusing to follow a High Court decision where a petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against that High Court decision was pending, held amounts to deliberate disobedience and wilful disregard of the High Court and is contempt of Court.”
The following observations of Hon’ble SC in a recent judgement is quite apt in our situations as well (though subject matter is different but the tenet is equally applicable):
“Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors.
[Contempt Petition (Civil) No.224 of 2011]
[Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Courts, if they are to serve the cause of justice, must have the power to secure obedience to its orders to prevent interference with the proceedings and to protect the reputation of the legal system, its components and its personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored investigation. The court is duty bound to protect the dignity and authority of this Court, at any cost, or else, the entire administration of justice will crumble and law and order would be a casualty.
............................J. (G.S. Singhvi)
New Delhi December 9,2013............................J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
R.B.KISHORE : VP,AIRIEF :