Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Shri C.N. Presannan, Judl. Second Class ... vs Shri K.A. Mohammed Ali, Adv. on 14 March, 1991 cites

R.K. Garg, Advocate vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 April, 1981

40. There cannot be any doubt that organising a demonstration before the residence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, and with a view to sway the courts in the proceedings pending before a subordinate Court, is a very grave threat to the Rule of Law and to the administration of justice. Consistent with the gravity of the offence, the maximum punishment permitted under the enactment would be perfectly justified. Some guidelines are available about the punishment imposed on contemners, by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered recently and the Calcutta High Court. (See R.K. Garg v. State of H.P., AIR 1981 SC 1382: (1981 Cri LJ 1029) and In re Provash Chandra, AIR 1961 Cal 495 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 334).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

P., A Pleader vs Judges Of The High Court Of Allahabad on 17 September, 1936

That and other cases including the Privy Council in Govt. Pleader v. Judges of High Court of Madras, AIR 1930 PC 144 : (31 Cri LJ 489), had been surveyed by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in In re Provash Chandra Mallick, AIR 1961 Cal 495 : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 334. Addressing the Magistrate spiteful and admonishing him for being disobliging to lawyers and warning the Magistrate that the matter would be given publicity constituted contempt, according to the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Advocate General vs K. Ramkumar on 20 August, 1985

In Advocate-General v. K. Ramakumar, ILR 1986 (1) Kerala 464, this Court imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an article published in a legal journal with limited circulation, having regard to the serious threat the article would have on the administration of justice. Organising a demonstration before the residence of the Chief Justice by itself, is far more serious, in as much as it would immediately attract the attention of larger sections of ordinary people. The gravity of his misconduct is enhanced when he had made arrangements by telephoning the editor of a prominent English daily having very large circulation in this area, to cover the news of such a demonstration. A report and the photograph thus published under Ext. P1 did seriously disturb the administration of justice and the working of the Courts and the morale of the judicial officers. With all these aggravating factors we have desisted from awarding him the punishment of imprisonment. We have been extremely indulgent towards him, having regard to the long standing he had at the Bar. In a sense, the long standing he had at the Bar should have made him more circumspect, and sober. Looked that way, a higher punishment is justifiable and may be imposed on him in such circumstances. We remind ourselves about the highest restraint needed in that circumstance and we have practiced that high restraint in these proceedings.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document
1