Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: A.K. Prakash

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 07, 1994
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/726461

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Contempt of Court Case No. 311 of 1994 (Suo Motu)
Subject
Contempt of Court

Case Summary

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

- - 3. On a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of C.

Key legal issue
Contempt of Court
Acts & sections
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: A.K. Prakash

Respondent

Advocate V.V. Asokan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2
Reported In
1995CriLJ1663

Excerpt

- - 3. on a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of c.m.m. pareed pillay, actg. c.j.1. contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent. he filed c.m.a. 126 of 1994 and when he did not get any relief he suppressing the fact of filing of that c.m.a filed c.m.a. 169 of 1994. considering that action as interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, charge was framed under section 2(c)(ii) of the contempt of courts act, 1971.2. on receipt of notice, respondent filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology.3. on a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of c.m.a. 169 of 1994 after the dismissal of c.m.a. 126 of 1994 against one and the same order was an abuse of the process of the court calculated to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings of this court and the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt of court of a serious nature. as such though the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology, we are convinced that the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation by the imposition of a sentence of fine. we would accordingly sentence the respondent with a fine of rs. 100/- to be paid within two weeks from today.the contempt proceedings is closed.

Full Judgment

M.M. Pareed Pillay, Actg. C.J.

1. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent. He filed C.M.A. 126 of 1994 and when he did not get any relief he suppressing the fact of filing of that C.M.A filed C.M.A. 169 of 1994. Considering that action as interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, charge was framed under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. On receipt of notice, respondent filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology.

3. On a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of C.M.A. 169 of 1994 after the dismissal of C.M.A. 126 of 1994 against one and the same order was an abuse of the process of the Court calculated to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings of this Court and the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt of Court of a serious nature. As such though the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology, we are convinced that the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation by the imposition of a sentence of fine. We would accordingly sentence the respondent with a fine of Rs. 100/- to be paid within two weeks from today.

The contempt proceedings is closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial