Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (2.37 seconds)
Documents citing Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs State Of U.P on 15 June, 2011

In Reference vs Ravi Shyamnani on 20 July, 2017

19. This Court has clearly laid down that an apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not bound to accept the same. The court is competent to reject the apology and impose the punishment recording reasons for the same. The use of insulting language does not absolve the contemnor on any -(18)- CONCR. NO. 03/2015 count whatsoever. If the words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any insult, an apology, if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not deserve to be accepted. (Vide: Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 710; The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar etc., AIR 1976 SC 242; Asharam M. Jain v. A.T. Gupta & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1151; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Vijai Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 642; In Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Ors. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3016; and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2275).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R S Jha - Full Document

Suo Motu vs Vijay Arvindbhai Shah on 31 August, 2020

26. The decision rendered in case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 776] also reiterated that not necessarily, apology even if unconditional and unqualified needs acceptance. Apart from being bonafide, if the conduct if is serious which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same need not be accepted. Relevant paragraphs of the same are profitably noted as under: -
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Vishram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2016

9. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan (Supra) this court has no occasion to doubt the 3 Cr.R. No.45/2015 (Vishram Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.) principles of law laid down by the said decision but the same is not relevant to the issue involved herein as this court has found that material produced by the prosecution in the chargesheet prima facie indicates presence of basic ingredients of the offence of cheating and forgery where strong suspicion of involvement of the petitioner if possible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bal Kishan Giri vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2014

16. This Court has clearly laid down that an apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not bound to accept the same. The court is competent to reject the apology and impose the punishment recording reasons for the same. The use of insulting language does not absolve the contemnor on any count whatsoever. If the words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any insult, an apology, if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not deserve to be accepted. (Vide: Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 710; The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar etc., AIR 1976 SC 242; Asharam M. Jain v. A.T. Gupta & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 11 1151; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Vijai Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 642; In Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Ors. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3016; and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2275).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

In-Re vs Vikram Sharma (Clerk) on 4 April, 2022

"19. This Court has clearly laid down that an apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not bound to accept the same. The court is competent to reject the apology and impose the punishment recording reasons for the same. The use of insulting language does not absolve the contemnor on any count whatsoever. If the words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any insult, an apology, if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not deserve to be accepted. (Vide:Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 710; The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar etc., AIR 1976 SC 242;Asharam M. Jain v. A.T. Gupta & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1151; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Vijai Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 642; In Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Ors. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3016; and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2275).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Bal Kishan Giri vs State Of U.P on 28 May, 2014

16. This Court has clearly laid down that an apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not bound to accept the same. The court is competent to reject the apology and impose the punishment recording reasons for the same. The use of insulting language does not absolve the contemnor on any count whatsoever. If the words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any insult, an apology, if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not deserve to be accepted. (Vide: Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 710; The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar etc., AIR 1976 SC 242; Asharam M. Jain v. A.T. Gupta & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1151; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Vijai Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 642; In Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Ors. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3016; and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2275).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 57 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Suo Motu vs Yogesh J Bhatt & on 29 September, 2014

It is required to be noted  and even so observed by  the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case    Vishram   Singh  Raghubanshi(supra)  there   is   growing   tendency   of   maligning   the  reputation of the judicial officers which is required to be curbed with  heavy   hand.   The   tendency   to   make   reckless   and   baseless   serious  allegation   against   the   Judicial   Officers   /   Officers   of   the   Court   is  increasing   and   because   of   such   baseless   and   frivolous   complaints,  Judicial Officers are always under pressure. It affects not only concerned  Judicial   Officers  but it affects  entire  institution  as a whole  and same  shall not be in the larger interest of judicial system. In the present case,  respondent   no.2   is  a  practicing  Advocate.   He  ought   to  have   properly  Page 10 of 12 R/CR.MA/389/2013 CAV JUDGMENT advised his client i.e. respondent no.1. On the contrary, in the complaint  dated 3.4.2012   he made correction in his own handwriting which are  more serious. In the complaint dated 3.4.2012 signed by the respondent  no.1, he has made correction in his own handwriting (as admitted) by  using word "by taking huge amount". Once the charge is framed and the  respondents have pleaded guilty, both the respondents are required to  be   held   guilty     for   the   "criminal   contempt"   within   the   definition   of  Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Act and Conduct on the  part of the respondents is not pardonable at all. Sufficient damage has  already been caused to the institution as a whole and judicial system  and the day  has now come to curb it with heavy hand.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next