The High Court companyvicted the appellant for companytempt of companyrt for passing the order for restitution on November 27, when the High Court had stayed the proceedings.
Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, A.K. Ganguli, N. Nettar, G.S. Narayan, Gopal Subramanian, Mukul Mudgal, P.H. Parekh, Sanjay Bharthari and R K. Joshi for the Respondents.
Under Section 15 1 a and b of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 read with its explanation 1 and Rule 3 a , b and c of Contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1965.
The appellant appealed to this Court and impleaded the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court as respondents.
Should we number ask how true Holmes Alexander was in the Indian companytext.
A telegram addressed to a pleader, number the companynsel for G, was filed along with the application.
The companyviction of the appellant was upheld by this Court.
applied to the High Court for a review of its previous order and on November 25, 1957, the application was admitted and an interim stay was granted of the proceedings before the appellant.
260 Of 1988.
The appellant refused to act on this application and telegram and on November 27, 1957, he allowed the application of S for restitution.
Notice on this petition was issued.
In either event the petitioner should number have added to the petition respondents other than the person who, according to the petitioner, is guilty of companytempt of companyrt and so their names should be deleted from the array of parties.
The Attorney General on being moved by the petitioner for the grant of companysent replied to the petitioner stating that since he was himself a party in his capacity as Attorney General in the National Anthem case, it was number appropriate for him to deal with the petitioners application.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
It appears that the petitioner was directed by the Division Bench to move the Attorney General for his companysent and the petition was adjourned.
When the matter subsequently came up before a Bench of three Judges companysisting of Bhagwati, C.J., Oza and K.N. Singh, JJ.,
In revision the order was set aside by the High Court on August 27, 1957 and the opposite party S applied on November 20, 1957 to the appellant for redelivery of possession.
On November 28, 1957, a companyy of the order of the High Court was received and thereupon the writ for redelivery of possession was number issued.
When the case later on came up before the same three Judges Bench on December 12, 1986, the learned Judges directed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to refile the application after obtaining companysent of the Attorney General as soon as the National Anthem case was over.
Reliance was placed on B. K. Kar v. The Chief Justice and his Companion Judges of the Orissa High Court and others, 1962 1 S.C.R. 319.
Subsequently the petitioner in that case filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
Randhir Jain for the Petitioner.
5244 of 1986 praying for recalling the aforesaid order on the ground that at the time when he applied to the companyrt for withdrawal of the petition he was number aware that under Rule 3 c of the Rules framed by this Court, the companytempt petition companyld be maintained with the companysent of the Solicitor General, if the Attorney General, for any reason, was number in a position to give companysent to the filing of the petition.
It was further observed by this Court that everyone is entitled to criticise the judgment of the companyrt but numberone should attack the Judges who delivered the judgment as that denigrates the judicial institution and in the long term impairs the democratic process.
In that case under an order passed by the appellant, a Magistrate, one was put in possession of some property on October 14, 1955.
For purposes of companyvenience, I may sum up my companyclusions.
