Suo vs Nandlal on 20 January, 2012
34), in the case of Radha Mohan Lal Vs. Rajasthan High Court,
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 427, I am of the view that the act of Mr.
Nandlal Thakkar amounts to Contempt of Court."
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 74 (2.31 seconds)Suo Motu vs Vijay Arvindbhai Shah on 31 August, 2020
24. The Apex court was examining the very aspect of ac-
ceptance of unconditional apology in case of Radha Mohan
Lal vs. Rajasthan High Court [(2003) 3 SCC 427] Where
the apology was tendered after the court punished the per-
son however, it was found to be full of contrition and gen-
uine. The relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced
as under: -
Montreaux Resorts P. Ltd & Ors. vs Sonia Khosla & Ors. on 13 January, 2015
A similar view has been reiterated in Radha
Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court[(2003)
3 SCC 427 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 863] .
P. Anil Kumar 3 Ors. vs C M.D., Ts Genco 5 Ors. on 18 September, 2018
wp_20544_2017&
wp(pil)_149_2017
Lal v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir5, where the
Supreme Court held that pro bono publico writ petitions
cannot be entertained in service matters. Therefore, the
public interest litigation writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
M.Sravan Kumar vs C.S., State Of T.S. 7 Ors. on 18 September, 2018
wp_20544_2017&
wp(pil)_149_2017
Lal v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir5, where the
Supreme Court held that pro bono publico writ petitions
cannot be entertained in service matters. Therefore, the
public interest litigation writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Dr. Eunice L Chawngthu vs The Iv Metropolitan Sessions Judge on 6 November, 2020
A similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal
v. Rajasthan High Court7.
State vs . Mohit on 23 May, 2023
54. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in
Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan, Jaipur
Bench) 2010 WLC (Raj) (UC) 256, in the case where
death occurred after four days due to septicemia which
developed later on, the court examined the question
whether the offence will fall under Section 302 IPC or can
be altered to 304-I and 304-II IPC. Their Lordships in the
above stated judgment observed as under:-
Ravi Kumar vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 18 October, 2022
20. These observations were subsequently, reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court (2003) 3 SCC 427.
Raghuveer Singh vs Shiv Kumar Swami And Ors. on 21 March, 2006
105. The principle has also been restated and reiterated in line of other decisions; Reference may be made to Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghose , Radha Mohanlal v. Rajasthan High Court and Bijay Kumar Mohanti v. Jadu .
Priyambada Tripathi vs Onkar Nath Khandelwal And Ors. on 4 August, 2004
20. A litigant should also not lose sight out of his sheer frustration that making scandalous allegation against any officer of the Court which are without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises and furnishing false information to the Court also amounts to criminal contempt (Vide D. R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, AIR 1996 SC 302 : (1996 Cri LJ 426); Afzal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 2326 : (1996 Cri LJ 1679); Prem Surana v. Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, AIR 2002 SC 2956 ; (2002 Cri LJ 4092); Contemnor In re: Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375 : (2002 Cri LJ 1792); Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), AIR 2003 SC 1467 : (2003 Cri LJ 1207); and S. R. Ramraj v. Special Court, Bombay, AIR 2003 SC 3039 ; (2003 Cri LJ 3863).