Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala vs M.S. Mani And Ors on 6 September, 2001
In State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani, (supra) the State had filed the petition complaining that the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court were undermined by the opponents by publishing a three column news on the front page of the newspaper "The Kerala Kaumudi" on 5-5-1999. The respondents had raised preliminary objection regarding absence of the consent of Attorney General under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In relation to the said objection, it was ruled that the written consent of Advocate General to the motion for criminal contempt is mandatory and obtaining consent subsequent to notice cannot cure the initial defect. Once it is clear that the present proceedings are not for criminal contempt but for civil contempt, the question of obtaining written consent of Advocate General for initiation of such proceedings does not arise at all and, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala is of no assistance in the matter in hand.
Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001
From bare reading of the said decision, it reveals that the Apex Court was dealing with the matter whereby the Government of Haryana had expressed its inability to comply with the directions issued in relation to the payment of arrears of salary to the employees on account of financial constraint. It was not a case of positive act of violation of the Court's order but an inability to perform an act which was directed to be performed by the Court. There is a difference between two such acts. In case of inability to perform an act on the ground of the financial constraint, the same may not always be an act of disobedience, and perhaps rarely be called as intentional or wilful. However, when the party to whom specific direction is given not to perform a particular Act and yet the party performs the said act, it apparently shows disobedience of the Court's direction. Undoubtedly, in order to hold a person to be guilty of Contempt of Court, such disobedience has to be coupled with wilful act on the part of performer.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Om Prakash Jaiswal vs D.K. Mittal & Anr on 22 February, 2000
Apparently, the view taken by the Apex Court in Om Prakash's case has not been approved by the larger Bench of Apex Court in its subsequent decision in Pallav Sheth's case.
Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 September, 1994
On facts, it is submitted that the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 1 apparently discloses justifiable reasons for execution of the sale deed dated 17-4-2001 and considering the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Niaz Mohammad & others v. State of Haryana & others, , financial constraint, disclosed by the respondent No. 1 as being the ground and reason for execution of the said sale deed should be considered as the justifiable ground in the matter and the mitigating circumstances while considering the issue regarding the alleged violation of the said order. It is also submitted that what has been sold by the sale deed is a small piece of land admeasuring about 16 Gunthas of area. It is also submitted that the sale deed was executed on the bona fide belief that the order of injunction was against the respondent No. 3 in the said appeal and not against all the parties to the second appeal, as the relief prayed for in the Civil Application No. 3202 of 1998 in relation to the restrain against raising of third party interest in the property was against the respondent No. 3 in the said appeal and not against other respondents.
Vishwa Dev Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 July, 1993
18. Reliance is also placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vishwa Dev Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 1223 and Ms. Sophy Kelly & another v. Chandrakant Ganpat & others, reported in 1999 All.M.R. (Cri.) 667, in support of the contention that the old age factor may be taken into account while considering the imposition of punishment.
Miss Sophy Kelly And Anr. vs Chandrakant Ganpat And Ors. on 4 February, 1999
18. Reliance is also placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vishwa Dev Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 1223 and Ms. Sophy Kelly & another v. Chandrakant Ganpat & others, reported in 1999 All.M.R. (Cri.) 667, in support of the contention that the old age factor may be taken into account while considering the imposition of punishment.
1