Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)Section 18 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 159 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 210 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Murray And Co vs Ashok Kr. Newatia And Anr on 25 January, 2000
13. This petition for initiation of contempt proceedings was
filed by the petitioner in this Court, where the winding up petition is
also pending. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on
Sadhna Sharma v Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 157 (2009) DLT
462 (DB); and Murray & Co. v Ashok Kumar Newatia & Anr,
(2000) 2 SCC 367, in support of the petitioner‟s contention that by
making such contradictory and palpably false statements before this
Court and a statutory authority, the respondent has committed
contempt of this Court. The issue essentially is whether, in stating
inconsistent and contrary facts before this Court on one hand, and
CCP(Co.) No. 8 in CP No. 215/2005 Page 6 of 12
before the Registrar of Companies on the other, Mr. K.K. Goel has
deliberately attempted to gain some advantage in these proceedings
and to impede the administration of justice, thus committing contempt
of this Court. It may be noted that counsel for the respondent
admitted at the Bar that the statements in the documents filed before
the Registrar are, in fact, correct.
The Companies Act, 1956
Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995
In
CCP(Co.) No. 8 in CP No. 215/2005 Page 7 of 12
Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 757,
the Supreme Court has held as under;