Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.64 seconds)Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Prakash vs Choudhry Plastic Works And Anr. on 23 February, 1979
33. Learned amices curiae, Mr.Sanjay Jain submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case were such that the Court must act in a resolute manner for vindication of its honour, prestige and to ensure respect for the rule of law and for maintenance of the purity of the justice system, especially by those who are part of the system. Regarding the scope, ambit and power of the Court while punishing for contempt, he submitted that it was an inherent power in a Court of record by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which was not abridged or fettered by limitations under the Contempt of Court Act. He referred to Raj Prakash v. Choudhry Plastic Works and Anr. 2nd (1981) II Delhi 939, Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 529 and Midnapore Peoples' coop.Bank Ltd. And Others v. Chunilal Nand an Ors. (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399.
Pritam Pal vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Jabalpur ... on 19 February, 1992
33. Learned amices curiae, Mr.Sanjay Jain submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case were such that the Court must act in a resolute manner for vindication of its honour, prestige and to ensure respect for the rule of law and for maintenance of the purity of the justice system, especially by those who are part of the system. Regarding the scope, ambit and power of the Court while punishing for contempt, he submitted that it was an inherent power in a Court of record by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which was not abridged or fettered by limitations under the Contempt of Court Act. He referred to Raj Prakash v. Choudhry Plastic Works and Anr. 2nd (1981) II Delhi 939, Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 529 and Midnapore Peoples' coop.Bank Ltd. And Others v. Chunilal Nand an Ors. (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399.
Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006
33. Learned amices curiae, Mr.Sanjay Jain submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case were such that the Court must act in a resolute manner for vindication of its honour, prestige and to ensure respect for the rule of law and for maintenance of the purity of the justice system, especially by those who are part of the system. Regarding the scope, ambit and power of the Court while punishing for contempt, he submitted that it was an inherent power in a Court of record by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which was not abridged or fettered by limitations under the Contempt of Court Act. He referred to Raj Prakash v. Choudhry Plastic Works and Anr. 2nd (1981) II Delhi 939, Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 529 and Midnapore Peoples' coop.Bank Ltd. And Others v. Chunilal Nand an Ors. (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399.