In Surendra Nath Banerjee v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal, ILR to Calcutta 109 the High Court of Calcutta in 1883 convicted Surendra Nath Banerjee, who was Editor and Proprietor of Weekly newspaper for contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment for two months for publishing libel reflecting upon a Judge in his judicial capacity. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. All eBooks are supplied firm sale and cannot be returned. If you believe there is a fault with your eBook Jowitt’s can be used as a guide to the use of appropriate terms and terminology when drafting legal documents or agreements, and to provide clarity on the intended meaning of a piece of legislation or an unclear contract clause. It provides the historical context of words and gives a distillation of legal concepts providing a first point of reference for research or for understanding an unfamiliar area of law. Provides clarity on the meaning of words, for example as to what the terms of a contract might mean

First published in 1959, Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law is the authority to be cited and relied upon in court when establishing the definition of each expression which forms part of the fabric of English law.

View tables of cases and legislation referred to it the text sorted alphabetically, and link directly to them In Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the PEPSU High Court, [1954] SCR 454, supreme Court considered the origin, history and development of the concept of inherent jurisdiction of a court of record in India. The Court after considering Privy Council and High Courts’ decisions held that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts. The Court further held that even after the codification of the law of contempt in India the High Court’s jurisdiction as a court of record to initiate proceedings and take seisin of the matter remained unaffected by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. The power to punish for contempt even in the absence of express provisions The subordinate courts administer justice at the grass root level, their protection is necessary to preserve the confidence of people in the efficacy of Courts and to ensure unsullied flow of justice at its base level. In India, the courts have followed the English practice in holding that a court of record has power of summarily punishing contempt of itself as well as of subordinate courts. Daniel Greenburg, the General Editor, is a Parliamentary draftsman at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and is also the editor of Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary. He has been assisted by the contributions of some seventy specialist editors in the compiling of the third edition of Jowitt’s.

Court of Record is a court where acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony, which rolls are called the “record” of the court, and are of such high and super eminent authority that their truth is not to be questioned.”The Supreme Court and the High Court both exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the constitutional scheme in matters relating to fundamental rights under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution, therefore this Court’s jurisdiction and power to take action for contempt of subordinate courts would not be inconsistent to any constitutional scheme.

Using ProView means you can connect to and interact with the content you rely on in new ways, wherever and whenever you like. Find out more about ProView. In R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 858 the Court again emphasised that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Court as a court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction, which is a special one, not arising or derived from Contempt of Courts Act and the provisions of Section 3 of 1926 Act, do not affect that power or confer a new power or jurisdiction. The Court further held that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, no law made by a Legislature could take away the Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court nor it could confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority. Key concepts in the law of the United Kingdom keep changing and developing their meanings, and practitioners need to be sure that they are using and interpreting expressions in accordance with the latest jurisprudence. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law remains the authoritative starting point, and is regularly cited to and by the courts for this purpose. See, for example, reference to Jowitt for the meaning of "judgment in rem" in Deutsche Bank Ag (London Branch) v Central Bank of Venezuela 2022] EWHC 2040 (Comm) or for the meaning of "retrospective legislation" in Jazztel Plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] EWCA Civ 232.Another manner of division is into courts of record and courts not of record. Certain Courts are expressly declared by statute to be courts of record. In the case of courts not expressly declared to be courts of record, the answer to the question whether a court is a court of record seems to depend in general upon whether it has power to fine or imprison, by statute or otherwise, for contempt of itself or other substantive offences; if it has such power, it seems that it is a court of record…….. proceedings of a Court of record preserved in its archives are called records, and are conclusive evidence of that which is recorded therein.” History Judicial conflict with regard to High Court’s power with regard to the contempt of subordinate court was set at rest by the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. Contempt of Courts Act 1926

Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 2022-01-22 23:06:27 Associated-names Greenberg, Daniel; Jowitt, William Allen Jowitt, Earl, 1885-1957. Dictionary of English law Bookplateleaf 0002 Boxid IA40334405 Camera USB PTP Class Camera Collection_set printdisabled External-identifier Similar view was taken by the Nagpur and Lahore High Courts in Mr. Hirabai v. Mangal Chand, AIR 1935 Nagpur 16; Harki- shan Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Lahore 197 and the Oudh Chief Court took the same view in Mohammad Yusuf v. Imtiaz Ahmad Khan., AIR 1939 Oudh 13 1. When you search SOLO for books on your Oxford Law Faculty Reading List you may findthat the location is shown as Law Library Reserve Collection. Books in the Law Reservecollection must be asked for at the Enquiry Desk on Level 2. Please remember to bring your Oxford University Card or your Bodleian Reader's Card when you come to the Desk.A court whereof the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony, and which has power to fine and imprison for contempt of its authority.” The expression used in Article 129 is not restrictive instead it is extensive in nature. If the Framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court shall have power to punish for contempt of itself only, there was no necessity for inserting the expression “including the power to punish for contempt of itself’. The Article confers power on the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself and in addition, it confers some additional power relating to contempt as would appear from the expression ‘including”. Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a court of record and it further provides that the Supreme Court shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.