The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Short Notes of Important Decisions of other High Courts in India Monday June 10 1935

When the contempt is one committed out of Court by a stranger and is of the nature of scandalising the Court itself what procedure is proper to the trial of the offender or competent? [...] Once the plea of truth or jurisdiction is admitted to be a valid plea the whole struture of the law at contempt us conceived by the majority of the learned judges falls to the ground. [...] If from the negative.fact that the summary procedure was never applied in ziny case where the scandalisation was genral it follows that the summary procedure is not applicable in such eases it ought equally to follow from the other negative fact that no instance can be found of the aplication of the procedure of indictment that the said procedure is not applicable either. [...] On the question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to apply the summary prcess to contempts by general scandalisation it appears to us that on the premises acept«1 by all the learned Judges the law as it is is on the side of the majority: No useful purpose will be served by our rviewing the cases on our own account. [...] 41 r. 6 for the stay of a sale and the Court ordered that the sale would be stayed on the judgment-debtor's dpositing into Court the decretal amount ; it was argued that the Court could only order security to be furnished but had no jurisdition to order the decretal amount to be dposited : Held (MADHAVAN NAIR and CORNISH JJ.)—That the Court had jurisdiction to pass the order.