MOHAMMAD IDRIS AND ANR. versus RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.

MOHAMMAD IDRIS AND ANR. versus RUSTAM JAHANGIR BABUJI AND OTHERS.

No further statutory right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court after appeal to the Division Bench under Section 19(1) Contempt of Courts Act; breach of undertaking justifies appropriate remedial directions.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohammad Joris; Petitioner: Mohammad Idris; Respondent: Rustam Jahangir Babuji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1984
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appeal From Division Bench Decision of Bombay High Court
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Right of Appeal Under Contempt of Courts Act, Breach of Undertaking, Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction
Contempt of Court Statutory Right of Appeal Under Contempt of Courts Act Breach of Undertaking Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Joris

Petitioner

Mohammad Idris

Petitioner

Rustam Jahangir Babuji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appeal From Division Bench Decision of Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statutory right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of an appeal by a Division Bench under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act
  2. 2 Whether the Single Judge was justified in giving directions in addition to punishing for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

No further statutory right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court after appeal to the Division Bench under Section 19(1) Contempt of Courts Act; breach of undertaking justifies appropriate remedial directions.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition dismissed
  • Directions given by Single Judge found appropriate