Contempt Petition - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

6Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

This Supreme Court judgment interprets Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affirming the method for determining market value based on comparable sale instances. It clarifies that rental compensation for pre-acquisition occupation is not statutorily mandated, but equitable interest may be awarded under Section 28 for specific periods of dispossession. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns a long-standing dispute over a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) plot of land in Nashik, originally part of Survey No. 8/1. In 1972, the Nashik Municipal Corporation (then Council) resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of this portion without formal acquisition. A 1978 notification under land acqu...

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge's order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to t...

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that when departmental proceedings are quashed for being illegal and vitiated by delay, the employee must be restored to the position they would have occupied in the service's normal course. This entitles them to retrospective promotion from the date their immediate junior was promoted, with all attendant consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was a Block Development Officer in Jharkhand. In 2007, an audit objection raised a suspicion of misappropriation, but a subsequent inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner cleared her, finding the expenditure was within the estimated cost. A decade later, in 2017, a charge-sheet was issued on the same allegation, culminating in a punishment of wi...

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

13Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife's permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court's order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband's income and the appellant's need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated. Facts Of The Case: Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expens...

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

The Supreme Court disposed of contempt petitions, affirming wilful disobedience of prior orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and December 10, 2024, regarding the issuance of DRCs/TDRs. The Court rejected attempts to re-examine previously decided issues or impose new conditions, emphasizing its limited contempt jurisdiction. DRCs/TDRs are to be released to complainants upon filing an undertaking, with the State retaining a first charge on any future compensation from civil appeals Facts Of The Case: This case involves contempt petitions filed due to alleged wilful disobedience of court orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and March 19, 2024. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated December 10, 2024, found the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance despite purported c...