BARADAKANTA MISHRA, EX-COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS versus BHIMSEN DIXIT

BARADAKANTA MISHRA, EX-COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS versus BHIMSEN DIXIT

Deliberate and mala fide failure by a quasi-judicial authority to follow a binding decision of the High Court, coupled with reliance on factually wrong and illegitimate grounds, amounts to contempt of court as it undermines the authority and respect of the High Court and impairs the administration of law.

Parties
Appellant: Baradakanta Mishra; Respondent: Bhimsen Dixit
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1972
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 8, 1971 of the Orissa High Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 9 of 1970
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Precedent, Superintendence of High Court, Quasi Judicial Authority, Contempt by Judicial Officers
Contempt of Court Hindu Law Judicial Precedent Superintendence of High Court Quasi Judicial Authority Contempt by Judicial Officers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baradakanta Mishra

Appellant

Bhimsen Dixit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 8, 1971 of the Orissa High Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 9 of 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a quasi-judicial authority's failure to follow a binding High Court decision amounts to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether making an erroneous statement of fact or justification for not following precedent is contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate and mala fide failure by a quasi-judicial authority to follow a binding decision of the High Court, coupled with reliance on factually wrong and illegitimate grounds, amounts to contempt of court as it undermines the authority and respect of the High Court and impairs the administration of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant found guilty of contempt of court.
  • Appellant admonished in open court and directed to pay Rs. 300 as costs.