Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1839
1. The appellant Shri Hari Shankar, feeling aggrieved by his conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act by Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, a learned Civil Judge has filed this Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant has read out the grounds of appeal in open court. It appears that in the grounds of appeal so read out with seemingly full lung power, the appellant has made scandalous attacks not only upon Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, a Civil Judge, but also upon Shri R. C. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, upon the District and Sessions Judge and upon the entire subordinate judiciary as well. Their vilification is as judicial officers and not as individuals. It thus appears that Shri Hari Shankar is guilty of Criminal Contempt committed in the presence of this Court. Shri Hari Shankar be accordingly detained in custody. He does not seek bail. 3. Since I feel that Shri Hari Shankar should be informed of the contempt with which he is charged, his attention is brought to the following portions of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order passed by this Court, on 31.10.2008, in W.P.No.2885 of 2001, had been complied with. 2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had also submitted that the respondents had complied with the order passed by this Court, on 31.10.2008. In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, this Contempt petition stands closed. 27.08.2010...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The Writ Petitioners complaining non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22910/2009 dated 14.12.2009 filed the present Contempt Petition with the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 2. The writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 03.06.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to measure and demarcate the property plot No.8, in S.Nos.127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95. 3. (i) The petitioner is a Power of Attorney holder of (1)Mrs.Molly Alexander, (2) Mrs.Mercy Silva and (3) Ddr.Jacob Mathew who are the legal heirs of Mrs.Thangamma Mathew the original owner of property in Plot No.8, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95 in Survey Nos.127/4A and 3A measuring an ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3959
ORDER1. This petition is under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and to punish the respondent for committing alleged offence of Contempt of Court. 2. The petitioner herein K. Ramakrishnan filed a complaint against respondent herein M. M. Rajendran for the alleged offence under Section 200 of Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in C.C. No. 92 of 1994. The respondent, M. M. Rajendran was Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, during the period February, 1988 to January, 1991. He was also Chairman of SPIC from 20-4-1990 to 19-1-1991. He also served as Chairman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Chairman of Tamil Nadu Planning Commission. At the time of retirement on 20-5-1993, he was Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process to the accused/respondent. The respondent filed petition under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC87
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition under Section 10 read with 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for deliberately violating the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the joint memo executed by the respondent, filed in Writ Petition No. 14517 of 2003 and recorded on 20.5.3003 by this Court and disobeying the said order, thereby committing contempt of Court. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is stated that the respondent herein submitted 3 applications with 3 industrial programmes to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, to quarry granite in S.Nos. 406/5 (present Survey No. 297/5) of Keelavalavu Village, 94/2 and 167/1 of Thiruchunai Village for grant of lease of 10 Hec., in each of the survey numbers. Since the petitioner was a retired Tahsildar and guiding the respondent, the respondent appointed him as a Power Agent on 12.2.1997 and the same was registered on 27.2.1997. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC1404
M. Katju, J.1. This Contempt Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2004 in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. Sri A.P. Verma and Ors.2. We have already upheld that judgment of the learned Single Judge by a Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 320 of 2004, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., decided by us on 27.4.2004. We see no reason to take a different view from that judgment. In that judgment we have gone into great detail about the alarming and widespread malpractice of unauthorised medical practice (quackery) prevailing in the State of U.P., and we have agreed with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2004 with the slight modification which we have made in our judgment dated 27.4.2004.3. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel appeard for the appellans and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20417 OF2017M/s. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER VERSUS OSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.2120 OF2018IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20417 OF2017AND SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.4 OF2019JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.1. The present proceedings arise out of an action initiated by Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Daiichi) for enforcing a Foreign Arbitral Award dated 29.04.2016 made in Singapore and passed in favour of Daiichi and against 20 Respondents i.e. Respondent 1:2. Malvinder Mohan Singh, Respondent 2: Malvinder Mohan Singh as Karta of HUF, Respondent No.3: Malvinder Mohan Singh as Trustee of Bhai Hospital Trust, Respondent No.4: Japna M. Singh, Respondent 5: Nimrita Singh, Respondent 6: Shivinder Mohan Singh, Respondent 7: Shivinder Mohan Singh as Karta of HUF, Respondent 8: Aditi Singh, Respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC544IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ___________ OF2024[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 19647-48 OF2022 S. TIRUPATHI RAO APPELLANT VERSUS M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ___________ OF2024[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 19748-19749 OF2022 JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ___________ OF2024[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 19647-48 OF2022 Leave granted.2. These appeals assail the common judgment and order dated 27th April, 20221 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad2 allowing 1 impugned order, hereafter 2 High Court, hereafter 1 Review I.A. No.1/2020 in LPA12018 and Review I.A. No.3/2020 in CA3320173 preferred by the first respondent. The impugned order of the High Court recalled the order under review and dismissed a contempt appeal as well as a letters patent appeal of the appellant.3. The present dispute emerges from a complex and interwoven set of legal proceedings, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1984CriLJ1243
B.C. Jauhari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Kuldip Narain Lai, appellant, against the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Goel in Contempt Case No. 304 of 1981, reported in 1982 All WC 671 : 1982 UPLT NOC 79, Kuldip Narain Lal v. Sri Mahendra Pal Jain and Sri Shanker Lal Jaiswal, by which he has discharged the notice for contempt issued against the opposite parties and held them not to be guilty of the contempt of Court.2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as Officiating Collection Amin by the order dated 22.8.1980. But subsequently by another order dated 21.6.1981 he was made seasonal Collection Amin. The appellant challenged this order by way of a petition before the Service Tribunal Lucknow and applied for an ad interim stay order that the order dated 21.6.1981 should not be given effect to. On 19.9.1981 the Tribunal passed an order that 12.10.1981 be fixed for hearing of the stay matter and till then status quo as prevailing on that day be maintained. This stay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3821
ORDERO.P. Garg, J.1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer that the respondents be punished for disobeying the orders passed by this Court in second appeal No. 2451 of 1984 arising out of Original Suit No. 668 of 1978.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the services of late Ashiwani Kumar Srivastava, who was an employee of New India Assurance Company Ltd. were terminated in the year 1972. He filed Civil Suit No. 568 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad challenging the order of termination. The aforesaid suit was dismissed. He filed appeal, which was allowed on 31-7-1984 by the I Additional District Judge, Allahabad Following order was passed by the appellate Court :-The appeal is allowed with costs throughout, the judgment along with the decree is set aside and it is hereby declared that the plaintiff still continues in service of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and is ...
Tag this Judgment!