Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing The State (Delhi) vs Dewan Ram Dass T. Chugani on 17 December, 1968

Shri Amar Singh Son Of Late Shri Ram ... vs District Judge on 25 May, 2005

In this report Sri R.L. Shankhwar, Judicial Magistrate had mentioned that the judgment in criminal case No. 965 of 1981 State v. Ram Deen under Section 379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 Electricity Act was to be delivered on 21.6.82 and the judgment was dictated to Sri Amar Singh on the same day i.e. 21. 6.1982, but the accused became absent and the judgment could not be delivered and 22.6.82 was to be fixed for judgment and on this day as well the accused became absent. In these circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate suspected that Sri Amar Singh had leaked the judgment and on being enquired Sri Amar Singh Steno impertinently behaved with Sri R.L. Shankhwar, Judicial Magistrate. Sri Amar Singh steno submitted his explanation to the District Judge, Mainpuri which is paper No. 9 in the earlier inquiry filed and he refuted the allegations made by Sri R.L. Shankhwar, Judicial Magistrate. The learned District Judge, Mainpuri passed the following order upon the explanation of Sri Amar Singh:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 1 - S Yadav - Full Document

Sumer Chand vs Daya Sarup Saxena on 25 April, 1969

(12) A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Original No. 14 of 1967 (The State v. Ram Dass T. Chugani) decided on the 17th December, 1968, has held that the Tribunal under the Act is a Court within the meaning of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is to be noted that while only certain specified powers under the Code of Civil Procedure have been conferred on the Controller, all the powers of a Court under that Code have been conferred on the Tribunal when hearing an appeal vide section 38(3). This is an important distinction between the powers of a Controller and the Tribunal. The decision of the Division Bench will nto govern the case of the Controller.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Court On Its Own Motion vs S.K. Garg on 25 January, 1991

(10) As has come on record and not disputed, Mr. Aggarwal had reached the court by about 10.20 A.M. After reaching the court he directly went to his chamber and was preparing to come out and sit on the chair when the contemner entered the court and reached up to his dias. Mr. Aggarwal by then was coming out from his chamber. The shouting and threats were given at that time. The very nature of shouting and threats to Mr. Aggarwal, the Judge of that Court amounts to substantial interference with the administration of justice. Mr. Aggarwal as per the facts which have come on record was so disturbed because of the shouting and threats that he had to rise from the court and report the matter to his senior. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a technical contempt. A judge has no means of defending himielf. In the very nature of things, be cannot engage himself in an open war. The respect for the courts must be fostered, for otherwise he pillars on which our system of laws and administration of justice stands are bound to be weekend thereby prejudicing the struggle of the people engaged in the vindication of their rights, It was so held in the case of The State v. Dewan Ram Dass T. Chugani, 1969 Dlt p 526. The contemner instead of understanding the gravity of the situation, took it to be a case where the judge was trying to settle his individual scores with him through the instrumentalities of these proceedings. Unfortunately, being a Police Officer (IPS) he should have seen that his conduct should not in any way ridicule the Judicial Officer in the eye of the public. Mindless of his action which be committed, he has tried to justify the same by going to the extent of writing in his reply that the behavior of Shri S M. Aggarwal was unbecoming of a judicial officer. This shows the tenor in which para.4 (i of the reply is written. It shows the attitude of the contemner and also his intention as. depicted in para 3of his reply though subsequently, he tendered apology. It also shows the behavior and conduct of the contemner.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1