Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Muthu Karuppan vs Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr on 15 April, 2011
In the case at hand, when the most important of the
mandatory input, namely the 'information' - being the letter of
the Judge dated 09.02.2023, had neither been seen by this Court
2024:KER:78880
Cont.Cas(Crl)2/23
29
at the time when cognizance was taken and had not been made
available to the respondent along with the Notice issued to him in
Form No.1, we are certain that Muthu Karuppan (supra) and Anup
Bhushan Vohra (supra) would enjoin us to permit no further
proceedings in this matter.
J. R. Parashar, Advocate & Ors vs Prasant Bhushan, Advocate & Ors on 28 August, 2001
16. Sri.Sanal Kumar then cited J.R. Parashar v. Prasant
Bhushan [(2001) 6 SCC 735], explaining that, in this case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of a notice,
which do not specify the contumacious acts, with which the
respondent is charged and with only a copy of the petition served
on him, to hold that this was not sufficient and thus to dismiss
proceedings.
State Of Kerala vs M.S. Mani And Ors on 6 September, 2001
29. Contextually confined, the judgment of this Court cited
by the learned Senior Counsel, namely State of Kerala v M.S.Mani,
becomes crucially vital and relevant. This judgment was delivered
in the bedrock of the facts that a contempt petition was filed on
17.05.1999; while the consent of the learned Attorney General was
obtained only on 11.05.2000. An argument was made that Section
15 of the 'Act' has been fully complied with; but the Honourable
Supreme Court stated that 'we are unable to accede to this
contention' and then went on to declare emphatically that ' the
fact remains that the motion to take action against the respondent
under Section 15 was not made with a consent of the learned
Attorney General or Solicitor General and therefore, is
incompetent'. Its next holding is what governs us, namely that,
2024:KER:78880
Cont.Cas(Crl)2/23
20
'subsequent obtaining of the consent, in our view, does not cure
the initial defect, so as to convert the incompetent motion into a
maintainable petition'.
Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has spoken on
this in great detail in several judgments, including Ramchandra
Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare and others [1975 (1)
SCC 559] and Vanaja v. State of Karnataka [2001(4) SCC 9]. In
fact, in the latter precedent, the Honourable Supreme Court
restated that when law requires a thing to be done in a certain
manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all; and that a
power must only be exercised in the manner provided by law.
This applies even against any attempt to do something which
cannot be done directly, in an indirect manner.
Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya vs Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd on 20 March, 1962
(See for support,
(I) Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills
2024:KER:78880
Cont.Cas(Crl)2/23
31
Ltd. and Others [AIR 1962 SC 1543];(ii) H.H.Maharajadhiraja
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Others v. Union of
India [AIR 1971 SC 530].