SHAILENDRA MOHAN SAXENA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Shailendra Mohan Saxena v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 26656 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9540 (15 May 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The order dated 5.5.2006 under challenge in the present petition has been passed by the Addl. District Judge convicting the appellant who happens to be Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Nazibabad, Bijnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

In some execution proceeding the executing court had directed attachment of a particular account of the judgment-debtor-respondent in petitioner's Bank to the tune of Rs. Fifteen Lacs and odd and in pursuance to that a communication had been received by the court regarding due compliance of the attachment order. Thereafter the court had issued orders directing the Bank to remit that attached amount to the court which is said to have remained uncomplied. The court, thus, on the petition of the decree-holder has found the petitioner Branch Manager of the Bank liable for contempt of the court and subsequently when an application by the petitioner was given for time to file a counter affidavit to the petition of decree-holder, the court below has rejected that prayer of the petitioner by the impugned order and has passed the sentence of civil imprisonment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned counsel contends that such an order is wholly without jurisdiction as not contemplated within the annuls of the contempt law. The subordinate court does not have any jurisdiction to pass an order convicting and passing sentence under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Issue notice to the respondents No. 3 and 4 returnable within six weeks.

List on the date fixed in the notice.

Meanwhile, the operation of the order of the court below dated 5.5.2006 shall remain suspended.

15.05.2006

SUA/26656-06

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.