Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

N.C. DAS versus M.A. MOHSIN AND ANR.

Decided
9 September 1997
Judges listed
S.P. BHARUCHA, M. JAGANNADHA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 25 · 1997 INSC 645
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This is a Special Leave Petition against an order of the High Court at Patna declining to take proceedings in contempt against the respondents. This is what the High Court said :

p. 25, margin E

I have heard Mr. P. K. Sinha and Mr. Jai Narayan, Sr:Counsei appearing on behalf of the parties, and also perused the show cause filed by the O.Ps. Although the conduct of the O.Ps. does not appear to be very fair but in. the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it fit and proper to pass any further orders. Since the judgment and order has been complied with by the. O.Ps., no further action· in this regard is needed. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel, submitted that although the petitioner has been given promotion but all the consequential benefits have not been paid to him. It goes 25 . without saying that if the petitioner submits all the necessary documents and papers there should not be any reason for the opposite parties not to pass necessary orders for payment of all consequential

pp. 25–26, margin F

benefits. This contempt application is disposed of accordingly.

p. 26, margin A

At the commencement of the hearing, we told learned counsel that in contempt proceedings such as these, an Appellate Court will not interfere unless the order is totally perverse. The Special Leave Petition has, nonetheless, been argued at length. We are in no doubt at all that there is no perversity in the order that is challenged.

p. 26, margin B

The contempt jurisdiction is not to be invoked or allowed to be invoked to enable that appellant to wreck personal vengeance against the alleged contemners.

p. 26, margin C

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. RP. Petition dismissed.

p. 26, margin C