ANIL KUMAR DUBEY Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA
LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-27
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (FROM: BILASPUR)
Decided on January 25,2017

ANIL KUMAR DUBEY Appellant
VERSUS
Pradeep Kumar Shukla Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COWARD V. STAPLETON [REFERRED TO]
ANISMINIC LTD. V. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR GUPTA V. JYOTI PRASANNA DAS THAKUR [REFERRED TO]
SUJITENDRA NATH SINGH ROY V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI DEVI SAGAR MILLS LIMITED LAKSHMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. PT RAM SARUP:CHINI MILLS MAZDOOR SANGH [REFERRED TO]
J K COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR KERBA JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
BARADA KANTA MISHRA VS. MR: JUSTICE GATIKRUSHNA MISRA CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
BARADA KANTA MISHRA VS. ORISSA HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTAM DASS GOEL VS. HONBLE JUSTICE B S DHILLON [REFERRED TO]
B N MUTTO VS. T K NANDI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MARIO CABRAL E SA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD IDRIS VS. RUSTAM JEHANGIR BABUJI [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
D N TANEJA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS PALGHAT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
U P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. CYAN DEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MAHBOOB S ALLIBHOY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHANWANTI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. PRICE WATERHOUSE [REFERRED TO]
R N DEY VS. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. RAM KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DADI JAGANNADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAL GIRISHBHAI SONI VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BARODA [REFERRED TO]
MODI TELEFIBRES LTD VS. SUJIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPORE PEOPLES CO OP BANK LTD VS. CHUNILAL NANDA [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. KHUSHAL KANWAR [REFERRED TO]
TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK SHARE HOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. S C SEKAR [REFERRED TO]
PARENTS ASSOCIATION OF STUDENTS VS. M A KHAN [REFERRED TO]
LEILA DEVID VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
LEILA DAVID VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR NATWAR SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT [REFERRED TO]
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI VS. STATE OF J AND K [REFERRED TO]
T GEORGE JOSEPH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TAX REGISTRATION GOVT OF U P VS. VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAWATI DEVI VS. R K SINGH [REFERRED TO]
L D KHANNA VS. CHOHAN HUHTAMAKI INDIA PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN RAM AND VS. DARSHAN AND [REFERRED TO]
JAI KARAN LAL VERMA VS. RAJESH KUMAR PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
SAHAI A P SAHI A P SAHI SATENDRA KUMAR JAIN SATENDRA KUMAR JAIN SADHNA UPADHYAYA ADVOCATE VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL KRISHNA CHAKRABORTY VS. SUKUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIRANJAN ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA,C.J. - (1.)On account of cleavage of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court regarding maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1971'), the following question has been referred for adjudication by this Full Bench:
"Whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge framing charges against the contemnor under contempt jurisdiction -

(2.)A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.01.2015 in M.A. No. 04 of 2015 held that an appeal lies against an order framing a charge in contempt proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, 1971. However, in another judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2016 in M.A. No. 15 of 2016 and other analogous cases, it has been held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971 would lie only from an order or decision imposing a punishment for contempt and unless there is an order or decision imposing punishment, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971 would not be maintainable.
(3.)At the outset, we may mention that the judgment passed on 06.04.2016 does not take note of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, passed on 22.01.2015. It appears that the attention of the latter Division Bench was not drawn to the earlier judgment. Therefore, the second judgment would be 'per incuriuam'. However since the matter is of importance, we propose to decide the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.