LexTHAKUR JUGAL KISHORE SINHA versus SITAMARHI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D I! F G H THAKUR JUGAL KISHORE SINHA v. SITAMARW CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR. March 13, 1967 (J. M. SHBLAT AND G. K. MITTBR, JJ.] Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935-Asslstant Reglstrtlf' Co-operative Societies acting under s. 48-Whether a court-Whether subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of contempt of Courts Act, 1952, •. 3. The apeellant in an appeal to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies B1har alleged that the Assistant Registrar in deciding a matter against him under s. 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1935 had discriminated against the appellant and had used double standards. In proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act the High Court of Patna held the appellant guilty. Appeal :-Vith .certificate W'.15 filed in this Court. The questions that fell to: conSider~tlon were : (1) whether the Assistant Registrar of· Co-operative Soc1et1es was a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act 1952; (ii) If a court, whether it was a court subordinate to the Patna High Court; (iii} whether the words used by the appellant in his appeal amounted to contempt. HELD : The appellant had been rightly convicted. (i) The Assistant Registrar was functioning as a court in deciding the dispute in question. His a'djudication was not based upon a private refe· rence nor was his decision arrived at in a summary manner, but with all the parapharnalia of a court and the powers of an ordinary civil court of the land. [173 El (Decision confined to cases under the Bihar Act only). [180 G] Brajnandan Sinha v,. Joyti Narain, (1955] 2 S.C.R. 955 and Shri Virin· dar Kumar Satyawadi v. The State of Punjab, [1955] 2 S.C.R .. 1013, re- lied on. Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Coommissioner of Taxation, [1931] A.C. 275, Bharat Bank Lim#ed v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. [1950] S.C.R. 459, Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, [1963] S.C.R. 730, C:ooper v. Wilson, [1937] 2 K.B. 309, Huddart, Parker & Co. v. Moore- head, ( 1909) 8 C.L.R. 330, Malabar Hill Co-operative Housing Society v. K. L. Gauba, A.I.R. 1964 Bom. 147, Raja Himanshu Dhar Sing/1 v Kunwar B. P. Sinha, 1962 All. L.J. 57, Sukhdeo v. Brij Bhushan, A.I.R: 1951 All. 667, In re Annamalai, A.l.R. 1953 Madras 362 Kapur Singh v. lag_at Narain, A.LR. 1951 Punj. 49, Lakhama Pesha ~. VenkatraD Swamirao, A.LR. 1955 Bom. 103, Budhi Nath Iha v. Manila! Jadav, A.I.R. 1960 Patna 361 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ratan Shukla, A.I.R. 1956 AU. 258, referred to. (H) The Assistant Registrar was a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of s. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Under Art. 227 of the Constitution the High Court exercises judicial control over all courts and tribunals functioning' within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Subordination for the purposes of s. 3 means judicial subordination and not subordination under the hierarchy of courts under the Civil Procedure 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967) 3 S.C.R. Code or the Criminal Procedure Code Article 228 of the Const:tution A does not indicate that unless a High Court can withdraw a case to itself from another court for dispos;ng of a·.substantial question of law as to the interp:etation of the Consftution the. latter court is not subordinate to the High Court. [176 D; 179 C, F] (iii) The words used by the appellant clearly amounted to contempt. [166 El It is in the interes~ of just~ce and administration of law that litigants should show the >ame respect to a court no matter whether it is the high- est in the land or whether it is one of :nferior jurisdiction only. [180 E-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1965. • Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 14, c 1964 of the Patna High Court in Original Criminal Misc. No. 6 of 1964. B. P. Singh, for the appellant. D. Goburdhun, for respondent No. 1. U. P. Singh, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High •Court at Patna under Art. 134 ( 1 )( c) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and . order of that court dated December 14, 1964 in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 1964 whereby the appellant was found guilty of contempi of court, i.e., of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sitamarhi Circle, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co- operative Societies,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.