Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ali Mahomed Adamalli (No. 2) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Review No. 416 of 1941
Judge
Reported in(1942)44BOMLR249
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAli Mahomed Adamalli (No. 2)
Excerpt:
.....act, 1923, directing a person to furnish within a specified time the statement of particulars of a wakf property under section 3 of the act and the statement of accounts of the wakf property under section 5 of the act, being an order directing the person to do a specific thing within a limited time, can, if disobeyed, be enforced by the high court by proceedings for contempt of court under the contempt of courts act, 1926. - - ali mahomed adamalli to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the contempt of courts act, 1926, for his failure to comply with an order made by the acting chief judge of the small cause court on september 4, 1939. that order was made under section 6a of the mussalman wakf (bombay amendment) act, 1935, and the order directed the respondent to furnish..........under section 5 (in the form in schedules a and b) of the mussalman wakf act in respect of the wakf property at falkland road, c. s. no. 170 of tardeo division, and that in default sanction under section 10b (1) would be given for the prosecution of the respondent for an offence under section 10 of the mussalman wakf act. that is an order directing the respondent to do a specific thing within a limited time, and orders of that nature, if disobeyed, can be enforced by proceedings for contempt of court, and under the contempt of courts act, 1926, it is only this court which can take action for contempt of the court of small causes.2. the respondent has refused, and still refuses, to obey the order. his contention is that the order was wrong, because the property in respect of which it.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, C.J.

1. This is the hearing of a notice issued by this Court to Mr. Ali Mahomed Adamalli to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, for his failure to comply with an order made by the acting Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court on September 4, 1939. That order was made under Section 6A of the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935, and the order directed the respondent to furnish within thirty days from the date of the order a statement of particulars under Section 3 (in the form in Schedule D) and a statement of accounts under Section 5 (in the form in Schedules A and B) of the Mussalman Wakf Act in respect of the wakf property at Falkland Road, C. S. No. 170 of Tardeo Division, and that in default sanction under Section 10B (1) would be given for the prosecution of the respondent for an offence under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Act. That is an order directing the respondent to do a specific thing within a limited time, and orders of that nature, if disobeyed, can be enforced by proceedings for contempt of Court, and under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, it is only this Court which can take action for contempt of the Court of Small Causes.

2. The respondent has refused, and still refuses, to obey the order. His contention is that the order was wrong, because the property in respect of which it was made is not wakf property. But if that was his contention he could have filed a suit in the High Court for a declaration to that effect, and applied for a stay of the order of the Small Cause Court. He did not do that, and the order has been in force, and has been disobeyed for over two years. He also says that he understood, from the direction to prosecute in default of compliance with the order, that that was the only penalty which he would incur. We have, however, offered him further time in which to comply with the order, but he says, through his counsel, quite definitely, that he does not intend to comply with the order.

3. As this is the first case of the kind which has come before the Court, we do not propose to send the respondent to prison, without the option of paying a fine. But we wish to make it perfectly clear that orders of the Court are to be obeyed, and in future when the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court makes a specific order under Section 6A of the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act directing accounts to be furnished within a limited time, and that order is disobeyed, this Court will not hesitate to enforce obedience to the order by sending the disobeying party to prison, where he may remain for a period not exceeding six months under the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. With that warning as to what will happen in the future in cases of this character on this occasion we impose upon the respondent a fine of Rs. 1,0100 (one thousand rupees), to be paid into this Court within one week. In default of payment of fine, the notice to be restored to the list.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //