Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing Nilesh Navalakha vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2021

Krishna Kishore Singh vs Sarla A Saraogi & Ors. on 10 June, 2021

29. The Court does not find merit in the contention of the Plaintiff seeking restraint on the strength of his right to fair trial. Plaintiff asserts that since he is the complainant in the FIR, he is entitled to a fair trial relating to the unnatural death of his son. He has relied upon the order of High Court of Bombay in the PIL in Nilesh Navalakha (supra), to contend that it is the duty of all media houses to protect the right to fair trial, and in case of competing interest between right to fair trial and right to free speech, the former should be given importance.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - S Narula - Full Document

Salil Raveendran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2023

P2 and P4 published by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. A draft guideline has been produced for reference. He also filed argument notes reiterating the points mentioned during the hearing and placing reliance on the following decisions: Bloomberg L.P v. ZXC [(2022) UKSC 5], WP(Crl) No.318/2022 -:11:- Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India [2021 SCC OnLine Bom.56], Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 703], Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639], K.S.Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1], Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 603], Manu Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2010) 6 SCC 1], R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632], Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others [(1983) 1 SCC 124] and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administratior, Union Territory of Delhi and Others [(1981) 1 SCC 608].
Kerala High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Jai Prakash Alias Prakash & Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 August, 2024

253. Resting on the authorities referred to above and as a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we hold that any act 157 2024:HHC:7237 done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for "administration of justice", could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jai Prakash Alias Prakash & Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 August, 2024

253. Resting on the authorities referred to above and as a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we hold that any act 157 2024:HHC:7237 done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for "administration of justice", could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arjun Jain vs News Broadcasting And Digital ... on 7 October, 2021

11.The respondent no.3 is, therefore, expected to act in a responsible manner and is directed to strictly follow the directions issued by the Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05 High Court of Bombay in Nilesh Navalakha & Ors (supra) as also ensure that the telecasts/broadcasts made by it are from authenticated sources and the disseminated content is in strict compliance with the existing regulatory guidelines issued by respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Palli - Full Document

Direction) Vijay Nair vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors on 21 November, 2022

253. Resting on the authorities referred to above and as a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we hold that any act done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for "administration of justice", could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1