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 August 12 1935

Adopting the view indcated by Lord Thankerton at almost the bginning of the hearing Sir William took up the position that the real question in cases of this kind was first whether a Court of Record had jurisdiction to take cognizance of a contempt of itself and secondly whther in the particular case contempt had been committed. [...] Providing they are protecting the Court against contempt of Court by this process the fact of whether it is ex facie ' the Court or not may be very good matter for the Court to decide what is the appropriate method of proceeding whether by informtion or indictment or committal; but the iherent power is surely the same. [...] That is one of the very reasons it has been so often Said that the Court in face of which the contempt is committed is the only Court that really knows the circumstances.] After some further discussion Lord Thakerton observed: " No doubt independence is the most prcious jewel the Court can have." Sir William Jowitt submitted that from one point of view the allegations were the apprehensions [...] " One cannot help remembering that in this case amongst the most notable facts to which the Judges refer is the fact that the Petitioners for leave to appeal here refused to make any sort of apology and considered that they were perfectly justified in the attitude that they took up at the time. [...] That may be perfectly justfiable but it cannot alter the view of the Court that the action was very deliberate' and very intentional and that they abslutely refused to look at it from the point of view of the Court." [LORD THANKERTON :—It was only critcism they said.