In Reference Vs. Shri Ramesh Kol [Rawat]

In Reference vs Shri Ramesh Kol [Rawat]

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 08, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053373

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1053373
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Reference

Respondent

Shri Ramesh Kol [Rawat]

Excerpt

.....standing and was unable to understand the legal position. it is also submitted by him that in future he shall not repeat such a mistake. shri raman patel, learned counsel appearing for the contemners submits that it is start of the career of the counsel, and if at this stage, he is punished, his entire career shall be ruined. the facts of the case are that contemner ramesh kol filed w.p.no.12494/2012(s) challenging his transfer order. the contemner no.1 ramesh kol was represented by contemner no.2 v.p.singh. the firs.petition i.e.w.p.no.12494/2012(s) was dismissed as withdrawn, however, the second petition i.e.w.p.no.12866/2012(s) was contested on merits, which was also dismissed. in both the petitions, a specific averment was made by the petitioner that no earlier petition was filed or decided by the high court and both the petitions were supported by an affidavit of contemner no.1 ramesh kol. apparently, the aforesaid petitions were filed by concealing the material fact and the act of the contemners amounts to criminal contempt. however, considering the fact that contemner no.1 is a government servant and contemner no.2 is an advocate, with a standing of near about one year, though have found that both the contemners have committed an act of criminal contempt, but considering peculiar facts of the case, we accept their unconditional apology and dispose of this case with following directions:- 1. at present, on the basis of unconditional apology, the proceedings against both the contemners are hereby dropped.”2. but in future, if it is found that any such act is repeated by both or any of the contemners.then the proceedings of this contempt case shall revive and the contemners shall face consequence thereon. with the aforesaid directions, in the light of aforesaid unconditional apology, the contempt proceedings are closed. (krishn kumar lahoti) (b.d.rathi) judge judge psm

Full Judgment

CONCR No.9/2012 08.04.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

Shri Raman Patel, Advocate along with contemners Ramesh Kol and V.P.Singh are present.

Both the contemners have filed their unconditional apology.

It is submitted by Ramesh Kol that it was by mistake and in future he will not repeat such a mistake and he may be pardoned for the aforesaid act.

The another contemner V.P.Singh submits that he is a lawyer of one year standing and was unable to understand the legal position.

It is also submitted by him that in future he shall not repeat such a mistake.

Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel appearing for the contemners submits that it is start of the career of the counsel, and if at this stage, he is punished, his entire career shall be ruined.

The facts of the case are that contemner Ramesh Kol filed W.P.No.12494/2012(S) challenging his transfer order.

The contemner No.1 Ramesh Kol was represented by contemner No.2 V.P.Singh.

The fiRs.petition i.e.W.P.No.12494/2012(S) was dismissed as withdrawn, however, the second petition i.e.W.P.No.12866/2012(S) was contested on merits, which was also dismissed.

In both the petitions, a specific averment was made by the petitioner that no earlier petition was filed or decided by the High Court and both the petitions were supported by an affidavit of contemner No.1 Ramesh Kol.

Apparently, the aforesaid petitions were filed by concealing the material fact and the act of the contemners amounts to criminal contempt.

However, considering the fact that contemner No.1 is a government servant and contemner no.2 is an advocate, with a standing of near about one year, though have found that both the contemners have committed an act of criminal contempt, but considering peculiar facts of the case, we accept their unconditional apology and dispose of this case with following directions:- 1.

At present, on the basis of unconditional apology, the proceedings against both the contemners are hereby dropped.”

2. But in future, if it is found that any such act is repeated by both or any of the contemneRs.then the proceedings of this contempt case shall revive and the contemners shall face consequence thereon.

With the aforesaid directions, in the light of aforesaid unconditional apology, the contempt proceedings are closed.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) Judge Judge psm

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties In Reference vs Shri Ramesh Kol [Rawat] Same Subject Education