Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (2.25 seconds)
Documents citing J. Vasudevan vs T.R. Dhananjaya on 8 September, 1995

Salora Finance Ltd. vs Mcm Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 5 December, 1997

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of J. Vasudevan (supra) clearly laid down that in order to invoke mercy jurisdiction and remission of sentence even if it is impressed on a contemner it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court so that there was sincere and genuine apology. It is observed that it would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow and if mercy is shown in such repeated contempt that the people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. In the present case the contemner No. 2 is a person in the rank of not less than a M.D. and there was an obligation to advance the cause of public interest which requires maintenance of rule of law failing which the contemners are required to be punished.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

R.M. Christie vs R.K. Thapa And Ors. on 27 March, 1998

In the words of Apex Court in the case of J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya reported in AIR 1996 SC 137, "it is really to see that unclinching faith of the people in the Courts remain intact". It is the duty of the Court to see that the prestige of the Court must remain intact and its dignity must be upheld. By circulating such news-weekly, if the faith is shaken (may be by a small class of people), it would encourage them to settle their disputes on the streets where muscle power and money power would win and the meek would suffer. That would be a deathknell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. Peoples' faith in the system of administration of justice would remain intact provided the institution administering justice is not attacked by making such false, frivolous and vexatious allegations which are amounting to scandalising the highest Court of the State.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R P Dholakia - Full Document

N. Venkata Swamy Naidu vs Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 21 September, 2007

52. The Advocate Commissioner's report dated 31.7.2005 specifically refers to the fact that, when he visited the site, demolition was in progress and that Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, (respondent No. 5), was present at the site. Except to raise several pleas on the merits of the dispute in C.P. No. 24 of 2004 and to contend that it is only the Managing Director who is responsible for the affairs of the Company, and that he was only a formal Director, the fifth respondent has neither rebutted the contention of the Advocate Commissioner that he was present at the site nor has he denied his presence at the site, when the Advocate Commissioner visited and found demolition to be in progress. It is established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, the fifth respondent, has willfully disobeyed and deliberately violated the order of status-quo passed by the Company Law Board dated 18.07.2005, and has committed contempt of court. Now the sentence to be imposed on the fifth respondent. While awarding sentence on a contemnor the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law and to ensure that the unflinching faith of the people in Courts remains intact. If the guilty are let off, and their sentence remitted on grounds of mercy, people would lose faith in the administration of justice. The Court is duty-bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high the person may be. (J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya ). There cannot be any laxity, as otherwise law courts would render their orders to utter mockery. Tolerance of law courts there is, but not without limits and only upto a point and not beyond. (Anil Ratan Sarkar). "The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope". (Jennison).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 72 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

In Re: Sri V. Satyanarayana Rao S/O. Sri ... vs Unknown on 11 October, 2007

31. While awarding sentence on a contemnor, the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law and to ensure that the unflinching faith of the people in Courts remains intact. If the guilty are let off, and their sentence remitted on grounds of mercy, people would lose faith in the administration of justice. The Court is duty-bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high the person may be. (J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya ). There cannot be any laxity, as otherwise law courts would render their orders to utter mockery. Tolerance of law courts there is, but not without limits and only upto a point and not beyond.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Sanjeev Nanda vs The State on 12 May, 2009

131. Openness is inherent in the very nature of the criminal trial under our system of justice. Without disputing the principles of open public trial being an integral part of American legal system and our own legal system and also considering the observation of the Apex Court in J. Vasudevan (Supra) coming heavily on a government officer‟s meeting a judge of the Supreme Court at his residence and disapproval of the action of a judge in Lillian Mc Crl. No. 807/2008 Page 108 of 274 Pharson‟s case (Supra) where the judge instead of sitting in a regular court room preferred to sit in a library to conduct the court proceedings, I am of the view that the audience granted by the court to the witness so far the facts of the present case are concerned stands on a completely different footing.
Delhi High Court Cites 165 - Cited by 29 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Sanjeev Nanda vs The State on 20 July, 2009

131. Openness is inherent in the very nature of the criminal trial under our system of justice. Without disputing the principles of open public trial being an integral part of American legal system and our own legal system and also considering the observation of the Apex Court in J. Vasudevan (Supra) coming heavily on a government officer‟s meeting a judge of the Supreme Court at his residence and disapproval of the action of a judge in Lillian Mc Crl. No. 807/2008 Page 108 of 274 Pharson‟s case (Supra) where the judge instead of sitting in a regular court room preferred to sit in a library to conduct the court proceedings, I am of the view that the audience granted by the court to the witness so far the facts of the present case are concerned stands on a completely different footing.
Delhi High Court Cites 165 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document
1   2 3 Next