SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT
Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 454; 1953 INSC 79
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN , VIVIAN BOSE, B. JAGANNADHADAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
1953 INSC 79. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1953-11-25. SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. Read the...
Judgment text
1953 Cornmi_ssioner of. Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay· City v. 1rf. essrs. Bhogilal Laherchand 1953 Nov. 26. I 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] this question referred to the High Court in the affirmative. Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondent: Rajinder Narain. SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. [MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ. ] Contempt of court-Contempt of Judges of High Court-Power of S1'preme Court to transfer proceedings to another High Court- Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, ss. 1(2), 527-Constitution of India, • art. 215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, s. 3. The Supreme Court bas no power under section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other provision of law to transfer from a High Court, proceedings which that High Court has initiated for contempt of itself, to another High Court.
Section 527 of the Criminal Procedrire Code does not apply to such a oase as the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt of itself and to punish the contemner where neces- sary, is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in a. 11 courts of record and section 1 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes such special jurisdictions from its scope. It is desirable, on general principles of justice, that a Judge who has been personally attacked should not as far as possible hear a. contempt matter which, to that extent, concerns him personally. In re Abdool and JJiahtab (8 W. R. Or. 32), Surendra. nath Banerjea v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Coi the sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to a contempt of court ......... and unless there exists a difference in the constitution of the Recorder's Court at 8ierre Leone the same power must be conceded to be in- herent in that court ............ we are of .
opinion that it is a court of record and that the law must be con- sidered the same there as in this country. " (11 (1926) l. L. l{. 48 All. 711. •• 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 1953 The 1884 edition of Belchamber's Practice of the Sukhdw Singh Civil Courts also says at page 241 that- Sodhi " Every superior court of record, whether in the Th Ch ~; J . United Kingdom, or in the colonial. possessions or e ie, usticed d . fth C h . and Judif" of the epen encies o e. rowi;i as _inherent power to . Pepsu pumsh contempts, without its precmcts, as well as in f . • ,, Hi9hUourt. Jacie curiae ....................... . Bose J. So also 7 Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham · edition) page 2- " The superior courts have an inherent Jurisdiction to punish criminal contempt etc .................. " But reverting to the developments in India. · The High Court of Allahabad was established in 1866 under the High. Courts Act of 1861 and was consti- -tuted a court of record.
In 1906 the Privy Council remarked at page 108 of its judgment in In the matter of Sashi Bhushan Sarbadhicary(') that- "There is also no doubt that the publication of this libel constituted a contempt of com·t which might have been dealt with by the High Court in a sum- mary manner by fine or imprisonment or both. " After this came the Government of India Act, 1915. Section 106 continued to all High Courts then in existence the same jurisdiction, powers and. authority as they had at the commencement of that Act, and section 113 empowered the establishment of new High Courts by Letters Patent w. ith authority to vest in them the same jurisdiction, powers and authority "as are vested in or may be conferred on any High Court existing at the commencement' of phis Act. " The Lahore High Court was established by Letters Patent in 1919 and was s. o. :R.
SUPREME COURT :REPORTS 465 comport themselves with that dispassionate dignity 195 3 and decorum which befits their high office and will Sukhdev Singh bear in mind the oft quoted maxim that justice must Sodhi not only be done but must be seen to be done by all v. concerned and most particularly by an accused person The Chief Justice who should always be given, as far as that is humanly and Judges of tltc possible, a feeling of confidence that he will receive a H. P;r;::Urt. fair, just and impartial trial by judges who have no. ig personal interest or concern in his case. Petition dismissed. Agent for the petitioner: Ratnaparkhi Ananl Gov·ind. · Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. MINERVA MILLtl LTD. v. THEUt WORKERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, B. K. MuKHERJEA an<l JAGANNADHADAS JJ. ) Indnstrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss.
7, 8, 10-Tribitnal cansti- t·11ted for fixed period-Oonstitittion of new tribimal for hearing cases not fitlly disposed of by previoiis tribitnal-Legality-Powers of State Government. Under Section 7 of the Industria,l Disputes Act, 1947, the ap- propriate Government has ample power to constitute an industrial tribunal for a fixed period of time ancl to constitute a new tribunal on the expiry of that period, to hear ancl dispose of all references made to the previous tribunal whicb had not been disposed of by that tribunal. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 140 to 143 and 156 and 157 of 1953. Appeals by special leave granted by the Supreme Court by its Order dated the 23rd April, . 1953, from the . decision dated tile 19th December, 1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Madras, in Appeals Nos. Bom. 245/52, 246/52, 247/52 and 248/52. 1953 Oct. 8.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.