Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Conscientious Group vs Mohammed Yunus And Ors. on 8 May, 1987

P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April, 1988

Indeed, it was gone into in the case of Conscientious Group (supra) and it will be more appropriate that it should be gone into upon notice to the law officer concerned. It is a case where appropriate ground for refusal to act can be looked into by the Court. It cannot be said as was argued by Shri Ganguly that the refusal to grant consent decides no right and it is not reviewable. Refusal to give consent closes one channel of initiation of contempt. As mentioned hereinbefore there are three different channels, namely, (1) the Court taking cognizance on its own motion; (2) on the motion by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General; and (3) by any other person with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. In this case apparently the Attorney General and the Solicitor General have not moved on their own. The petitioner could not move in accordance with law without the consent of Attorney General and the Solicitor General though he has a right to move and the third is the court taking notice suo motu. But irrespective of that there was right granted to the citizen of the country to move a motion with the consent. In this case whether consent was to be given or not was not considered for the reasons stated by the Attorney General. Those reasons are linked up with the Court taking up the matter on its own motion. these are inter-linked. In that view of the matter these are justiciable and indeed it may be instructive to consider why this practice grew up of having the consent .
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 105 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Dr. Joseph Kuzhijalil vs Joseph Pulikunnel Alias P.S. Joseph And ... on 18 August, 1999

In Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus, AIR 1987 SC 1451 : 1987 Cri LJ 1182 the Supreme Court indicated that when reasons for refusal of consent by the Advocate General (Solicitor General in that case) are not found to be irrelevant or arbitrary, Court cannot permit the revival of the contempt of Court proceeding which had earlier been permitted to be withdrawn so as to enable the petitioner to move first, the Solicitor General for consent under Section 15(1) of the Act. This decision indicates that the Court can when it is moved for initiating action for contempt of Court, consider whether the reasons given by the Advocate General are irrelevant in the eye of the law and to a limited extent can consider whether the view expressed by him is arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Arun Kumar Krishnarao Balpande vs Wasudeorao Kondbaji Ganar And Others on 13 October, 1995

In Conscientious Group's case, (cited supra) the opinion of the Attorney General/Solicitor General declining consent was accepted by the Supreme Court. In paragraph-8, the Supreme Court observed that elaborate reasons have been stated by the learned Solicitor General in support of his conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to give his consent to the initiation of the contempt proceedings. The Court found that the view expressed by the Solicitor General cannot be characterised as arbitrary illegal or unreasonable, and that was why the view of the Solicitor General was accepted. That is not case here. Therefore, we are unable to accept the view of the Advocate General in this regard.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Harish S/O Mahadeo Pimpalkhute And Anr. vs Bal Thackeray And Ors. on 7 February, 1997

The learned Counsel and Advocate General placed reliance on the decisions in R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu , Vinaya Chandra Misra v. Sachindra Kumar Sarkar 1974 Cri.L.J. 962, S.K. Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Misra , Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors. and P.N. Duda v. P. Shivshankar . With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have examined the ratios laid down. The dictum as deduced from them does not suggest in any manner that the procedure prescribed by the Act controls the exercise of power under Article 215. Even otherwise, like Articles 14, 19 and 21, etc., the power under Article 215 has not been made subject to any law for the time being in force.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S B Mhase - Full Document

Digambar Son Of Haribhau Pajgade vs Shri Nikhil Wagle on 4 February, 2013

In the case of Conscientious Group Vs. Mohammed Yunus & others [AIR 1987 SC 1451], the Apex Court in para 8 observed with reference to the refusal of consent by the Solicitor General of India that elaborate reasons have been stated by the learned Solicitor General in support of his conclusion that it would not be in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:37:52 ::: 8 Conp.5/2012 public interest to give his consent to the initiation of the contempt proceedings. It further said after scrutinizing the reasons given by the learned Solicitor General, we are of opinion that the grounds stated by the Solicitor General for declining to grant consent cannot be said to be irrelevant in the eye of law, nor can the view expressed by the Solicitor General be characterized as arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. The material on the basis of which the petitioner has prayed this Court to take suo motu action for contempt does not, in our opinion, constitute interference in the administration of justice, nor the same amounts to scandalization of the Court. It is well settled that the suo motu action for contempt should normally be taken in rare cases and further use of suo motu power frequently will render the procedural safeguards of the consent of Advocate General nugatory. The whole object of prescribing procedural safeguards is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from being wasted by frivolous contempt petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A B Chaudhari - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs M.S. Mani And Ors on 6 September, 2001

The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/Attorney General/ Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes motion in the case of a criminal contempt in a High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the State/Centre as also the officers of the Courts are vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity of the Courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provisions. Further cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by personal vendetta and not in public interest will get filtered at that level. If a motion of criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers, the very purpose of the requirement of prior consent will be frustrated. For a valid motion compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of the Act is mandatory. A motion under Section 15 not in conformity with the provisions of Section 15, is not maintainable. /See : Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 89 and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 167].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1   2 Next