B.K. KAR versus THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 14-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

t 
) 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
319 
to be in the course of inter-State trade, and the impo-
sition of a tax thereon is not repugnant to Art. 286(2) 
of the Constitution. In the result this petition is dis-
missed with costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
B.K. KAR 
v. 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMP ANION 
JUDGES OF THE 
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER 
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court-Order of Superior Court-Nol duly com-
municated to subordinate court-Subordinate court acting contrary 
to order-If guilty of contempt-Practice-Conviction for contempt 
by High Court-Whether Chief Justice and Judges of High Court 
sho1dd be made parties in appeal. 
Under an order passed by the appellant, a Magistrate, one 
G was put in possession of some property on October 14, 1955· 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. 
G 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. On 
November 26, 1957. an application bearing an illegible signature 
and not supported by an affidavit was filed before the appellant 
indicating that the High Court had stayed the proceedings. A 
telegram addressed to a pleader, not the counsel for G, was filed 
along with the application. The appellant refused to act on this 
application and telegram and on November 27, 1957, he passed 
an order allowing the application of S for restitution. On 
November 28, 1957. a copy of the order of the High Court was 
received and thereupon the writ for redelivery of possession was 
not issued. The High Court convicted the appellant for con-
tempt of court for passing the order for restitution on November 
27, when the High Court had stayed the proceedings. The 
appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and impleaded the 
Chief justice and Judges of the High Court as respondents. 
z96r 
Endupuri 
Narasimham 
c;, Son 
v. 
The State of 
Orissa 0-- Ors. 
Venkatarama 
Aiyar ]. 
196I 
March r4. 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
r96r 
Held, that the appellant was not guilty of contempt of court. 
Before a subordinate court can be held to be guilty of contempt 
B. I<. I<a• 
of court it must be established that it had knowledge of the 
v. 
order of the High Court and intentionally disobeyed it. The 
The Chief ]usti" knowledge must be obtained from a source which was either 
and his Companion authorised or otherwise authentic. In the present case the 
judges of the 
appellant was entitled to ignore the application as well as the 
>-
High Cou•t of telegram. 
Orissa & Another 
In a contempt matter the Chief Justice and Judges of the 
~ 
High Court should not be made parties and the title of such a 
proceeding should be "In re ......... the alleged contemnor". 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 58 of 1959. 
J.fudholkar ]. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 7, 1958, of the Orissa High 
Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8 of 1958. 
• 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M. 
Sen, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
B. 111. Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and 
Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 1. 
1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuDHOLKAR, .J.-In this appeal by special leave, 
the appellant who has been found guilty of contempt 
of court by the High Court of Orissa is challenging 
his conviction. 
To this appeal, as well as to criminal 
appeal 2 of 1960 in which another person is challeng-
ing his conviction for contempt of court by the same 
High Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the 
High Court have been made parties. The learned 
Additional Solicitor General who has put in an 
appearance for a limited purpose has raised a point 
that in such matters it is not at all necessary to make 
the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court 
parties. 
He points out that in England in all con-
tempt matters the usual title of the proceeding is 
"in re ........................ (so and so)", that is the person 
who is proceeded against for contempt. 
The same 
practice, according to him, is followed in appeals. We 
must, however, point out that in appeals preferred to 
I 
' 
• 
•• 
I 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
321
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.