CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1926, CASES, PART 5

The Hon’ble Chief Justice has felt extremely uneasy over the remarks made in respect of him, for, he cannot give a public reply nor is he obliged to justify or explain to the Executive any matter falling within the domain of his administration. The Court expected more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgment on the part of the Prime Minister because of the high office she holds in making offhand remarks in respect of constitutional functionaries which have been alleged to be contumacious.

Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, President, Supreme Court Bar Association 4 BLC (AD) 81.

Section 2—

In view of the compliance of the Court’s order by delivery of possession and tendering unqualified apology and also considering that contemner has retired from service, the contemner should be exonerated by accepting his apology. But if an officer is found to have wilfully avoided compliance of the order of the High Court Division he cannot be spared from the punishment for committing contempt of Court only on the ground of his retirement.

Gulshan Ara vs Jogonnath Dey and others 5 BLC 52.

Sections 2 and 3—

As the contemner has tendered unqualified apology and begs for mercy of the Court which is accepted considering his old age and ailing health but the same should not be construed as a leniency to anyone but be a warning to all concerned specially performing the functions of the Judicial Munshikhana of the Deputy Commissioners as the arms of this Court is long enough to catch and punish anyone how high so ever.

Almas Ali vs Sohrab Miah & others 2 BLC 66

Section 3—

Statements made by respondent in a zeal to protect the neutrality and independence of judiciary and it was not a criticism of any particular judge nor can it be termed as scandalisation of the judges of the Superior Court or the judiciary in any form as the constructive and honest criticism relating to appointment of the judges cannot be construed as contempt of Court.

Dr Ahmed Hussain vs Shamsul Huq Chowdhury 1 BLC 321.

Section 3–

It is clear from the two letters that the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation asked the respondent to submit a normal joining report in compliance with the trial Court’s decree enabling the Corporation to allow him to join without delay as the prayer made in the joining letter was beyond the terms of the decree obtained by the respondent and it was loaded with extraneous demands but the High Court Division has failed to consider the same as it transpires from the said two letters there was no disobedience shown to the Court’s decree and it is not understood as to how the appellant could be found guilty for alleged disobedience of the Court’s decree for 12 months and 16 days in the face of the said two letters written to the respondent.

SAM Iqbal vs State and another 3 BLC (AD) 125.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.