Orders of which contempt possible/punishable

Division Bench in writ appeal without going into disputed contentions merely observed that judgment impugned before it for restoration of land would be given effect to subject to right of State available to it under 2003 Act. However, Division Bench vide order dt. 17-10-2007 categorically found that having declined to restore land, appellants had committed contempt of court and decided to frame charge accordingly. It was held by the Supreme Court that Division Bench in writ appeal was conscious of right available to State to proceed against disputed land under the Act and thus, appellants cannot be said to have committed contempt for having taken steps under the Act. Impugned order dt. 17-10-2007, was set aside and liberty was granted to respondents to take recourse to statutory remedy under S. 10 of the Act. [L. Radhakrishnan v. ParakulangaraDevaswom, (2018) 1 SCC 236]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *