N.C. DAS v. M.A. MOHSIN AND ANR.
Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 25; 1997 INSC 645
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
1997 INSC 645. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1997-09-09. N.C. DAS v. M.A. MOHSIN AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S. C. R. N. C. DAS V. M. A. MOHSIN AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 [S. P. BHARUCHA AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ. ] Contempt of Court-Petition before High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against opposite parties for alleged non-compliance of Court's order~High Court holding that order had been complied and no further action required-Appeal~Held in contempt proceedings, such as these, an appellate court will not interfere unless the order is totally pei;verse-;-There is no perversity in the order passed by the High Court-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15812of1997. From the Judgment and Order dated. 2. 5. 97 of tjie J;'atna High Court in M. J. C. No. 699of1996. Deba Prasad Mukherjee, B. Kar Gupta ·and Sanjay Ghosh for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : This is a Special Leave Petition against an order of the High Court at Patna declining to take proceedings in contempt against the respondents. This is what the High Court said : I have heard Mr. P. K. Sinha and Mr. Jai Narayan, Sr:Counsei appearing on behalf of the parties, and also perused the show cause filed by the O. Ps. Although the conduct of the O. Ps. does not appear to be very fair but in. the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it fit and proper to pass any further orders. Since the judgment and order has been complied with by the. O. Ps. , no further action· in this regard is needed. Mr. P. K. Sinha, learned counsel, submitted that although the petitioner has been given promotion but all the consequential benefits have not been paid to him. It goes 25 .
without saying that if the petitioner submits all the necessary documents and papers there should not be any reason for the opposite parties not to pass necessary orders for payment of all consequential benefits. This contempt application is disposed of accordingly. At the commencement of the hearing, we told learned counsel that in contempt proceedings such as these, an Appellate Court will not interfere unless the order is totally perverse. The Special Leave Petition has, nonetheless, been argued at length. We are in no doubt at all that there is no perversity in the order that is challenged. The contempt jurisdiction is not to be invoked or allowed to be invoked to enable that appellant to wreck personal vengeance against the alleged contemners. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. RP. Petition dismissed. ...
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.