Proceedings for contempt of court
Proceedings for contempt of court legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Contention of contemnors was that neither show-cause notice was issued nor charge was framed and they were punished without proper trial
Validity
Neither show-cause notice was issued to the contemnors before passing of impugned order of punishment/conviction nor any charge was framed against them
No formal trial was conducted in the present case
Notice for contempt of court should have been issued to the contemnors and after considering the pleas raised by them in their reply to such notice a decision ought to have taken by application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the material brought on record
Procedure laid down under S.7 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 had to be followed by issuing a formal show-cause notice containing charge-sheet in clear terms to the contemnors and inquiry should have been made in the matter
Impugned order of conviction and sentence of contemnors was not maintainable
Order was set aside and Nazir was directed to return the amount of fine to the contemnors after proper verification and identification.
"Proceedings for contempt of court", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124953555
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Proceedings for contempt of court"
1982 P L C 578
MUHAMMAD ALI SIDDIQUI Versus AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936.
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal SindP L D 1978 Lahore 1353
MUKHTAR HASSAN-Petitioner Versus MAJOR KHAWAR HUSSAIN ETC.-Respondents
Court: High Court2000 P Cr
AZAM JAN ZARKOON — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: QuettaP L D 1978 Lahore 842
QUAIM DIN-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB-Respondent
Court: -- O. XXIII, r. I(3)-Withdrawal of suit-Appellant's suit for perpetual injunction restraining respondent from interfering with possession of appellant over property in dispute withdrawn by appellant on respondent's making a statement in Court that he would not misappropriate property-Another suit subsequently brought by appellant claiming perpetual injunction against respondent in respect of same property on ground of fresh cause of action having arisen due to denial of appellant's title to property by respondent-Respondent also alleged to have made a statement in previous suit that in case of violation of his statement appellant would be entitled to bring a suit against him while respondent's statement being only this that he would not misappropriate property-Held: Appellant may be entitled to bring another suit if respondent does any act giving fresh cause of action but no such eventuality occurred-Respondent if making any attempt to interfere with appellant's possession could be proceeded for contempt of Court-Fact of no decree having been passed in previous suit and no injunction having been issued against respondent-Makes so difference-No difference between an injunction and statement of party binding himself not to do an act for whose prevention suit brought against such party-No new cause of action having arisen suit barred by O. XXIII, r. 1(3).-Injunction.1994 S C M R 496
MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2017 Y L R Note 196
NIGHAT ANJUM — Petitioner Versus Malik NAEEM and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)P L D 1953 BaghdadulJadid 79
Syed AHMAD NAWAZ SHAH‑Petitioner Versus WALIULLAH UHAD (Editor "Kainat")‑Respondent
Court:1972 S C M R 444
ATTORNEY‑GENERAL FOR PAKISTAN‑Appellant Versus THE CHIEF EDITOR AND BUREAU MANAGER,
Court: High CourtP L D 1972 Supreme Court 39
ASHFAQUE AHMAD SHEIKH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1962 (W
THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent
Court: