Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 416 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001

Marshall Machines Pvt Ltd vs Hema Ashok Hattangady on 23 January, 2019

DJ - 24/18 that had been filed by the petitioner herein on 26.05.2017 qua the alleged contempt committed by the respondent on the date 28.02.2017 is thus within a period of a year from the date of the alleged commission of the contempt and in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 SCC 549 as observed in para 42 thereof and would thus fall within the ambit of the period of the limitation in terms of the Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

S.Nagaraja vs Dr.Poornachandram on 30 September, 2022

28. First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 25 Cont.P.No.2048 of 2022 prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

M.Jayaprakasam vs ) Tmt.Sabitha on 18 December, 2017

31. First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

S.Kamatchi Sundaresan vs ) Tmt.Sabitha on 18 December, 2017

31. First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

J.Uma vs Dr.G.Narendrakumar on 11 April, 2018

28. First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

S.Ranganathan vs Mrs.Sabeetha on 18 April, 2018

26.First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

M.Rajalakshmi vs Mr.G.Prakash on 10 April, 2018

Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

A.Ravi vs Mr.G.R.Kanagaraj on 4 July, 2018

27.First of all, the facts of the above said case is that the suo motu issuance of notice for the offence of contempt was initiated within a period of limitation of one year. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the decision in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others [ (2001) 7 SCC 549 ]. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next