Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala vs M.S. Mani And Ors on 6 September, 2001

Damodar Mahadeo Patil vs Motiram Mahadeo Patil And Anr. on 3 October, 2002

In State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani, (supra) the State had filed the petition complaining that the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court were undermined by the opponents by publishing a three column news on the front page of the newspaper "The Kerala Kaumudi" on 5-5-1999. The respondents had raised preliminary objection regarding absence of the consent of Attorney General under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In relation to the said objection, it was ruled that the written consent of Advocate General to the motion for criminal contempt is mandatory and obtaining consent subsequent to notice cannot cure the initial defect. Once it is clear that the present proceedings are not for criminal contempt but for civil contempt, the question of obtaining written consent of Advocate General for initiation of such proceedings does not arise at all and, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala is of no assistance in the matter in hand.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

A P Pathak vs Cbi on 3 May, 2013

13. Reliance of learned counsel for the Appellant on State of Kerala Vs. M.S. Mani & Ors. (supra) is misconceived and has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the contempt petition was filed on 17th May, 1999 and the consent of the Attorney General was obtained on 11th May, 2000 and that a subsequent consent would not convert the incompetent motion into a maintainable petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Punjab And Haryana High Court Bar ... vs Sanjay Narayan And Anr on 20 September, 2024

16. Further, in support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor places reliance, upon, a verdict rendered 15 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2024 02:45:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125003-DB CROCP-10-2014 -16- by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as State of Kerala Vs. M.S.Mani and Others, reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 82. The relevant paragraph whereof, is extracted hereinafter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Tukaram S/O. Balesh Majjagi vs Miss. Sindhu Venkatesh Belur on 1 October, 2024

10.1 The Apex Court, in Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others [supra], has indeed referred to the decision in State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani and others in reiterating that obtaining the consent of the learned Advocate General in writing for making a motion under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is mandatory, but the Apex Court has also referred to its
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

P.A.Shahabudeen vs The District Collector on 24 August, 2009

So much so, the decision rendered in State of Kerala v. W.P.C.Nos.6701 & 19710/08 - 9 - R.V.S.Mani (1995(2) KLT 568) relating to sales tax arrears will not get priority or precedence over and above a secured creditor in an insolvency proceeding after introduction of Section 26B in the Sales Tax Act cannot continue to have any force after the above amendment. But it has to be concluded that the sales tax arrears due from a dealer or any other person is a state debt in respect of which a proceeding under the Insolvency Act is maintainable at the instance of a person who is proceeded against for the recovery of such debt.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Ratan Chandra Sharma And Anr. vs Kum. Sheetal Sharma And Ors. on 21 August, 2002

The Apex Court has also answered this question which came up before it in the case of State of Kerala, supra. In the said case also, contempt petition was filed on May 17th, 1999 and the consent of the Attorney-General was obtained on 11th May, 2000. It was submitted before the Apex Court that the petitioner submitted that Section 15 of the Act has been complied with. But the Apex Court was unable to accede to this contention. It observed "The fact remains that the motion to take action against the respondents under Section 15 was not made with the consent of the learned Attorney-General or Solicitor-General and therefore is incompetent. Subsequent obtaining of the consent, in our view, does not cure the initial defect so as to convert the incompetent motion into a maintainable petition" and therefore, dismissed the contempt petition and discharged the contempt notice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - H N Narayan - Full Document

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

Considering the aforesaid contention, even though the amended provisions of Order VI are attracted in the matter of filing of plaints in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on account of the reference made to Order VI and Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules, non-compliance thereof at the initial stage did not render the suit non-est. On account of such finding of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, not only have the proceedings before the learned Single Judge been wiped out, but such a decision has the effect of rendering the proceedings taken in the appeal also non-est. The decision in M.S. Mani's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. P.K. Ghosh, cannot be equated with the views expressed in Khayumsab's and Kailash's case, inasmuch as, in the former case, the provision requiring the prior consent in writing of the Advocate General was an intrinsic part of the application touching upon the maintainability of the motion itself and not procedural as in the facts of the instant case. The said decision, therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 81 - A Kabir - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next