Whether court can pass ancillary orders in contempt jurisdiction?

Mr.Kini, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that this court has no powers to pass ancillary orders while exercising the contempt jurisdiction which may altogether be the subject of an independent proceedings before this court. In fact according to the learned counsel, the order to appoint the respondent No.2 as agent of the receiver was challenged by the original plaintiff before this court by way of a writ petition and this court did appoint the defendant No.2 as an agent of the receiver inspite of being the contemnor. According to him, therefore, an order cannot be made by this court in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction for vacating the receivership of the respondent contemnor. Now, admittedly such a prayer was made before the trial court in the presence of the contemnor which was not allowed by the trial court. It is, therefore, clear that the contemnor has notice of such a prayer having been made by the original plaintiff. As regards propriety of such an order, I am of view that there is no merit in the contention that this court in exercise of a contempt jurisdiction cannot make such order because such an order was not made by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of the appointment of the receivership. At that stage the contemnor was not found as having breached the order of the court and therefore, there was no occasion to pass such an order.

High Court of Judicature at Bombay

V.D. Kavatkar, Registrar, Small Causes Court, Bombay vs. Fatima Huseni Radhapurwala & Others

(SUO MOTO) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.189 OF 2005, INT. NOTICE NO.660 of 2005, R.A.D. & E. SUIT NO.1155 of 1905 OF 2002

Decided On, 28 August 2007

By,  MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

Print Page

Whether Registrar can refuse to register sale deed on the ground that challan showing deposit of stamp duty is more than one year?

Whereas there is a specific
limitation regarding usage of a stamp paper, there is no such
restriction on usage of challan and the department correctly
appreciating the statutory provisions had issued the earlier directive
dated 2.4.2012 placed at Annexure-4. The department perhaps
having realized the legal infirmity in the letter bearing Memo
no.3418 dated 11.8.2014 placed at Annexure-B to the main counter
affidavit has decided to amend the same but once this Court has
noticed the transgression by the Inspector General of Registration,
any continuance of the said letter would be prolonging an illegality
and in consequence the letter bearing Memo no.3418 dated
11.8.2014 of the Inspector General of Registration placed at
Annexure-B to the main counter affidavit, is quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15981 of 2014
With
I.A. No.149 of 2015
With
I.A. No.3094 of 2015
Citation;AIR 2015 Patna 133
 Kumari Shivani Rai, V  The State of Bihar 


CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
Citation;AIR 2015 Patna 133
Date: 21-04-2015

Print Page