Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (4.66 seconds)
Documents citing Bal Thackrey vs Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors on 29 November, 2004

Chhitij Kishore Sharma vs Mr. Justice Lok Pal Singh on 4 September, 2018

compliance of the principles of natural justice by granting adequate opportunity to the appellant but is about compliance *Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 254 **State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani reported in (2001) 8 SCC 22 and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 254 24 with the mandatory requirements of Section 15 of the Act. As already noticed the procedure of Section 15 is required to be followed even when petition is filed by a party under Article 215 of the Constitution, though in these matters petitions filed were under Section 15 of the Act. From the material on record,it is not possible to accept the contention of the respondents that the Court had taken suo motu action. Of course, the Court had the power and jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu and for that purpose consent of the Advocate- General was not necessary. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the Courts normally take suo motu action in rare cases. In the present case, it is evident that the proceedings before the High Court were initiated by the respondents by filing contempt petitions under Section 15. The petitions were vigorously pursued and strenuously argued as private petitions. The same were never treated as suo motu petitions. In absence of compliance with mandatory requirement of Section 15, the petitions were not maintainable."
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 16 - 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

Unknown vs Mr. Justice Lok Pal Singh on 4 September, 2018

compliance of the principles of natural justice by granting adequate opportunity to the appellant but is about compliance *Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 254 **State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani reported in (2001) 8 SCC 22 and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 254 24 with the mandatory requirements of Section 15 of the Act. As already noticed the procedure of Section 15 is required to be followed even when petition is filed by a party under Article 215 of the Constitution, though in these matters petitions filed were under Section 15 of the Act. From the material on record,it is not possible to accept the contention of the respondents that the Court had taken suo motu action. Of course, the Court had the power and jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu and for that purpose consent of the Advocate- General was not necessary. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the Courts normally take suo motu action in rare cases. In the present case, it is evident that the proceedings before the High Court were initiated by the respondents by filing contempt petitions under Section 15. The petitions were vigorously pursued and strenuously argued as private petitions. The same were never treated as suo motu petitions. In absence of compliance with mandatory requirement of Section 15, the petitions were not maintainable."
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hero Motocorp Limited & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 30 May, 2018

26. The Court finds merit in the contention of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel CRL.M.C. 2451/2013 & connected matters Page 12 of 13 for Respondent No.2, that the procedure that has been evolved by this Court for entertaining petitions under Section 15 of the Act in Anil Kumar Gupta v. K. Subba Rao ILR 1978 (1) Del 1 has received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar AIR 1988 SC 1208 and subsequently in Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute (2005) 1 SCC 254. The Court agrees, therefore, that the Petitioners ought to have first placed the papers before the Chief Justice of this Court on the administrative side and it was thereafter for the Chief Justice to decide whether suo motu contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Act should be initiated against the contemnors.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Shri Pravash Kumar Sahoo And Anr. vs Shri S.M. Pattnaik on 25 February, 2005

In Bal Thackery's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of Criminal Contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Hon'ble Court has held that the case in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 167 is applicable only to cases that are initiated suo motu by Court when some information is placed before it for suo motu action for contempt of Court and as such, it was laid down that in respect of contempt action, the procedure prescribed therein has to be followed.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P K Mohanty - Full Document

Rajaram Waman Masurkar vs Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And ... on 19 July, 2007

In the case of Page 1509 Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court had clearly held that the directions contained in P.N. Duda's case to place contempt petition before the Chief Justice for orders, prescribe the procedure to be followed by the High Court to ensure smooth working and streamlining of such contempt actions as are intended by the Court suo moto on its own motion. Those directions have no effect of curtailing or denuding the powers of the High Court. More over, a complete distinction was made in regard to the proceedings which are initiated by the Court suo moto. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no application to the present case. The proceedings were initiated by the Court suo moto keeping in view the offending acts of the contemnors.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next