9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontempt of the High Court. The Notice was issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed Under Section 17 of the Act, to show cause against the appellant's alleged liability to be punished Under Section 15. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this Court Under Section 19 of the Act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided by the High Court. Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie to this Court as a matter of right Under Section 19. 3. In our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is well-founded and must be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question. This Court, for the first time, cannot be asked in such an appeal to decide whether the person proceeded against has committed contempt of the High Court or not. The matter has to be decided either finally or, may be even at an earlier stage an order is made, which does decide a contention raised by the alleged contemner asking the High Court to drop the proceeding. It is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be appealable to this Court Under Section 19. A final order, surely, will be appealable. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, to Section 20 of the Act wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19(1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent. 4. We find some support to the view expressed by us above from the decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Orissa High Court MANU/SC/0076/1975MANU/SC/0076/1975 : 1976CriLJ944 where it has been held that no appeal lies to this Court Under Section 19 of the Act from an order rejecting the prayer of the alleged contemner for hearing the case piecemeal. 5. Mr. Lal placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra MANU/SC/0095/1974MANU/SC/0095/1974 : 1975CriLJ1 . What has been decided therein is this : that on a reference made by the Advocate-General if the Court declines to take cognisance and to initiate proceeding for contempt, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
