Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Karim vs M. K. Prakash And Ors on 30 January, 1976

Ladies Corner, Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 15 April, 1987

9. The point was whether the police should take cognizance of the injunction order issued by the Honorable Civil Judge against the recovery of possession by the Central Muslim Association. The injunction order was issued on 4-11-1982 after the recovery to possession of the Central Muslim Association and the injunction order was not served on Muslim Association prior to the recovery of possession by the Muslim Association and this injunction order was issued subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings under S. 149, Cr.P.C. and S. 65(d) of Karnataka Police Act in which the police are empowered to present commission of any offence including the cognizable offence by means of acts not prejudicial to the interest of any person in law. The police had instructed all the parties to put forth their case in the above case. But the person who obtained injunction order did not participate as he had known that he had no case for seeking protection from the police.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade on 5 May, 2022

23. in S. Abdul Kari v. M.K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charged act complained of is committed by a person performing judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings.
Karnataka High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urban Improvement Trust And Ors. vs Barkat Khan on 12 November, 2002

In S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charged act complained of is committed by a person performing judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Sarojini Kumari on 14 May, 1998

In S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash AIR 1976 SC 859 : 1976 Cri LJ 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charged act complained of is committed by a person performing judicial/quasi judicial proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi vs Civil Judge (Sd) And Ors. on 31 March, 2003

In S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charged act complained of is committed by a person performing judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Priyambada Tripathi vs Onkar Nath Khandelwal And Ors. on 4 August, 2004

In S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859 : (1976 Cri LJ 641), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charged act complained of is committed by a person performing judicial/ quasi-Judicial proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

R.D. Ram S/O Sri Ram Pher Ram vs Ratan Kumar Tandon S/O Late Lalji Tandon on 29 August, 2007

17. The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and are, thus, punitive. The standard of proof required to establish a charge in contempt proceedings is the same as in any other criminal proceedings, and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The guilt of a person for having committed contempt of court must rest on reasonable certainty. Suspicion, no matter how strong and speculative, must not form the basis of contempt. Vide Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. The Attorney General for Trinidad and Tabago AIR 1936 PC 141; Sukhdeo Singh v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice S. Teja Singh and Hon'ble Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala AIR 1954 SC 186; S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash ; V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta ; Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia ; Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1293; and Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Ors. .
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next