Court : Guwahati
Reported in : 2012CrLJ1843
Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the contemnors, is directed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge recording prima facie satisfaction of commission of contempt of Court in violating the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No.378/2010 and drawing up the contempt proceeding against them, which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No.20/2010, and asking them to show-cause as to why action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the 1971 Act) shall not be taken and appropriate punishment for contempt of court shall not be awarded. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal may be noticed as under: (i) The Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department, vide notification dated 16.04.2007, initially brought the New Hindi Secondary (Hindi and English medium) School, Khejurbagan, Agartala, under the State Grant-in-Aid scheme of the Education (School) Department w.e.f. 01.04.2007, thereby bringing all the existing 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the contemnors, is directed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge recording prima facie satisfaction of commission of contempt of Court in violating the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No.378/2010 and drawing up the contempt proceeding against them, which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No.20/2010, and asking them to show-cause as to why action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the 1971 Act) shall not be taken and appropriate punishment for contempt of court shall not be awarded. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal may be noticed as under: (i) The Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department, vide notification dated 16.04.2007, initially brought the New Hindi Secondary (Hindi and English medium) School, Khejurbagan, Agartala, under the State Grant-in-Aid scheme of the Education (School) Department w.e.f. 01.04.2007, thereby bringing all the existing 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3638; 2009(4)KarLJ299
1. This is a suo motu contempt initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. The respondent/accused Rangappa Bhovi has filed a police complaint against a sitting Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 13-2-2008 before the Deputy Commissioner which has been forwarded to Jurisdictional Police at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore, alleging that in the Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2006 filed by him and Writ Petition No. 10825 of 2006 filed by the Management, the learned Single Judge in collusion with the management, in order to cause injustice to a dalit like the petitioner (accused herein), by misusing his power and adopting corrupt method illegally, dismissed his writ petition thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to him. As the said criminal complaint was against a sitting Judge of the High Court in respect of offences alleged to have been committed, the police intimated the filing of this complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2005CriLJ449; 2004(77)DRJ624
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. It is a well recognised principle that a matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemnor. In the instant case an appeal (being LPA. No. 120/2001) preferred by the present applicant was disposed of in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties in the following manner:'Appellant shall approach the competent authority in DDA within a month from today for consideration of employment against class-IV vacancy on the plea of similar treatment in case DDA had offered such employment against class-IV to any other person in lieu of land acquisition. His case shall be given due consideration in that event on the analogy of such similar cases and subject to availability of vacancy. Appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard within one month from receipt of appellant's application /representation.'2. According to the learned counsel, there were directions, namely, to the applicant to approach within a period of one month and to the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 07, 2019 Pronounced on: August 21, 2019 + CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CRL.M.A.8872/2004 INDRA CHAND JAIN Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw & ........ Petitioner Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates. Versus JAIDEEP GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae, Mr.Vinod Pandey &Mr. Kunal Awana, Advocates with respondent in person. + CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 & CRL.M.A.1459/2007 & CM19782007 DR. INDRA CHAND JAIN Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw & ........ Petitioner Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates. Versus PUSHPA GUPTA & ORS. Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae, ........ RESPONDENTS Mr.Vinod Pandey & Mr. Kunal Awana, Advocates with respondent No.3 in person. Mr. A.B.Dial, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ananya Datta Majumdar, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 Page 1 of 6 JUDGMENT CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004, CRL.M.A.8872/2004 & CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005, CRL.M.A.145...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 07, 2019 Pronounced on: August 21, 2019 + CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CRL.M.A.8872/2004 INDRA CHAND JAIN Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw & ........ Petitioner Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates. Versus JAIDEEP GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae, Mr.Vinod Pandey &Mr. Kunal Awana, Advocates with respondent in person. + CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 & CRL.M.A.1459/2007 & CM19782007 DR. INDRA CHAND JAIN Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw & ........ Petitioner Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates. Versus PUSHPA GUPTA & ORS. Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae, ........ RESPONDENTS Mr.Vinod Pandey & Mr. Kunal Awana, Advocates with respondent No.3 in person. Mr. A.B.Dial, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ananya Datta Majumdar, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 Page 1 of 6 JUDGMENT CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004, CRL.M.A.8872/2004 & CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005, CRL.M.A.145...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRL.CCC No.9/2021 BETWEEN:1. . HASHAM INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.134, NEXT TO WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. PAGALTHIVARTHI SRINIVASAN. 2 . WIPRO LIMITED76 AND80, DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035. REPRSENTED HEREIN BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT CORPORATE TAX, MR. BALASUBRAMANIAN K., 3 . MR. AZIM HASHAM PREMJI, FOUNDER CHAIRMAN, WIPRO GROUP, S/O SHRI MOHD. HASHAM PREMJI, AGED ABOUT74YEARS NO.574, DODDAKANNELLI, 2 SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035. ...COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI GANESH S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT No.1; SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR COMPLAINANT Nos.2 &3) AND:1. . INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY INDIA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1322; ILR1999KAR507
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This is an unfortunate case, for a Bank clerk (also an ex-serviceman) who had grievance of denial promotion to him for pretty long time is up in arms as against his own employer, the Canara Bank. This petition is filed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act as against the respondent-Canara Bank, represented by its Chairman, Sri T.R. Sridharan, with a prayer that the respondent-Bank be proceeded against for the offence committed under sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Sri O. Sridharan on the one side and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.R. Narasimhamurthy appearing for the respondent-Bank. We also perused the case records. 3. The main allegations averred in the contempt petition are that when W.A. No. 367 of 1993 came to be disposed of on 5-2-1996 by the Division Bench to which the second of us was a Presiding Judge along with his Lordship Justice S.A. Hakeem, as he t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2785
R.B. Mehrotra, J.1. The present contempt appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 5th Feb. 1991, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has found the present appellant guilty of committing contempt with impugnity by repeatedly violating the order of the High Court dated 9th Dec. 1988 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16115 of 1988 Rajneesh Saxena v. Committee of Management, S.M. College, Chandausi. The learned single Judge, after considering the circumstances of the case, has held that the apology tendered by the appellant contemner was not bona fide but a ruse to escape punishment and in the circumstances the learned single Judge arrived at a conclusion that a fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and a sentence of imprisonment is necessary. Consequent thereto, the learned single Judge ordered that the appellant contemner should suffer a civil prison ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ864
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. The Order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 683 of 1993 shall also dispose of the connected Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 837 of 1993.2. Madam Indrani Dutta, Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, and Madam Smt. Vimla Singh, Third Civil Judge (Class II), Durg, are the petitioners (in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 683 of 1993), who have made a joint reference under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for punishing the accused-contemners under Section 15 of the said Act, for having committed criminal contempt of the subordinate Courts of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, for having published, printed and distributed the false and frivolous news on 31-1-1993 and on other dates in February, 1993, in the premises of the District Court at Durg, as per Annexures-A-1 to A-5, and that, the news so published and printed was scandalous and tends to lower the reputation and character of the lady Judges of any Court of the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!