Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 307 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002

Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive ... vs Assam Roller Flour Mills Association on 26 October, 2021

“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society 5 (2014) 16 SCC 204 18 will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 112 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Jamals, Rep. By Its Managing Partner, ... vs P.Syamala Proprietrix, Prajwal ... on 23 August, 2005

(1) PADAM SEN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2) RAM BARAN PRASAN v. RAM MOHIT HAZRA AND OTHERS (3) SARDA GOVINDA RAO MAHADIK AND ANOTHER v. DEVI SAHAI AND OTHERS (4) OM PRAKSH GARG v. GANGA SAHAI AND OTHERS (5) VANNARAKKAL KALLALATHIL SRIDHARAN v. CHANDRAMAATH BALAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS (6) HAMDA AMMAL v. AVADIAPPA PATHAR AND THREE OTHERS (7) RITA MARKANDY v. SURJIT SINGH ARORAR (8) R.N.DEY AND OTHERS v. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK AND OTHERS (2004 (4) S.C.C.400) (9) CHHOTURAM v. URVASI GULATI AND ANOTHER (10) MRITYUNJOY DAS AND ANOTHER v. SAYED DHASIBUR RAHAMAN AND OTHERS (2001(3)S.C.C. 739) (11) RAJENDAR SINGH v. RAMDHAR SINGH AND DOTHERS (12) ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND OTHERS v. HIRAK GHOSH AND OTHERS (13) PREM SURANA v. ADDITIONAL MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER (14) P.G.PATRA v. PURAN FOODS AND ANOTHER (15) M.C.MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (16) SANDEEP v. D.LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER (2003(1) S.C.C. 294) (17) BANK OF BARODA v. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA AND ANOTHER (18) Dr. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS v. SUBRATA DAS AND OTHERS (19) DAROGA SINGH AND OTHERS v. BK. PANDEY (20) PRITHAWI NATH RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS (21) RAGHAVA KOTIAN v. VASU POOJARY (2004(7)S.C.C. 640) (22) STATE OF BIHAR AND DOTHERS v. RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER (23) U.P.RESIDENTS EMP.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

A.P.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank ... vs Mr Umesh Chand Asawa And 10 Others on 26 August, 2022

PNR,J CC No.353 of 2021 22 Union of India). The wilful element is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. (Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh). Wilful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with the purpose of either disobeying or disregarding the law.
Telangana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

The Workmen Through The Convener Fci ... vs Ravuthar Dawood Naseem on 19 May, 2020

24. Reverting to the decision of this Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar (supra), it was a case in which crystal­clear direction was 33 given to the management to treat the concerned employees at par with another set of specified employees. Further, despite six rounds of litigation, the management kept on taking defence of its bona fide understanding of the situation, which came to be deprecated. Had it been a case of clear direction by the Tribunal, the High Court or this Court, and an attempt was made to interpret, or so to say, misinterpret, such direction, to regularise the employees concerned under the Departmental Labour System, and if such direction was not to be complied with by the respondent Corporation, the situation could have been viewed differently ­ being a contempt action. In the present case, it is not a moonshine defence as was the finding recorded in the reported decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next