Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 139 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984

Lh Of Deceased Hiralal Somabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 July, 2022

"32. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1984 SC 1374) "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry-it is another to 'feel' sorry."
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Court Of Its Own Motion vs B.D. Kaushik And Ors., Rajinder Kumar, ... on 19 December, 1991

Thus, if anything as lawyers the responsibility on the contemners was much greater. Let me hasten to say that this does not mean that the court will be unduly harsh with the contemners simply because they are lawyers. As often-said, the Bench and the Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. When the court imposes sentence on members who are part of the same institution it is done with considerable anguish with the hope that such acts aren't repeated in future. Undoubtedly, when the court is required to exercise its contempt jurisdiction it is exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and, therefore, often when lawyers in the heat of the moment transgress the well defined norms, the court ignores such conduct but when lawyers indulge in such gross and pre-planned acts of contempt, they do not deserve to be dealt with lightly. Those who seek to destroy the judicial system neither deserve sympathy nor compassion. It will be useful to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State ofU.P., which reads thus: "To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult-in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the day when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if any of his orders, or the decision rendered by him, displeases any of the Advocates appearing in the matter."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

'3. Though The Relief Sought For Should ... vs U.O.I. 1998 (4) Scc 409 on 22 November, 2013

13. We would hold that the manner in which the contemnor has conducted himself before us, and the tone and tenor of his affidavit do not commend him to us at all. If we are to be carried away by Mr.N.G.R.Prasad's refrain, the same would do the contemnor a member of the Bar, no good at all. While we fully would be justified in rejecting the affidavit of the contemnor as apparently it is not one of the heart, we do not wish to cause him harm. We are conscious that any imposition of punishment would visit him with very serious repercussions, particularly since he already stands once condemned by this Court. We find reason to follow the majority view of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the B.D.Kaushik case cited supra and accordingly, we do not propose to award the sentence at present and defer it as we would like to further watch his conduct and behavior for a period of one year from today. In case he repeats any act which tantamounts to contempt of court or undermining the judiciary, he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence. But if he maintains orderly, good and disciplined behavior and does not indulge in the repetition of such acts within the stipulated period, then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next