Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Conscientious Group vs Mohammed Yunus And Ors. on 8 May, 1987
The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/Attorney General/
Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes
motion in the case of a criminal contempt in a High Court or Supreme Court,
as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The
said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the
State/Centre as also the officers of the Courts are vitally interested in
the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity
of the Courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the
proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest
or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said
provisions. Further cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by
personal vendetta and not in public interest will get filtered at that
level. If a motion of criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is
not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers,
the very purpose of the requirement of prior consent will be frustrated.
For a valid motion compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of the
Act is mandatory. A motion under Section 15 not in conformity with the
provisions of Section 15, is not maintainable. /See : Conscientious Group
v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 89 and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv
Shanker and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 167].
P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April, 1988
The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/Attorney General/
Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes
motion in the case of a criminal contempt in a High Court or Supreme Court,
as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The
said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the
State/Centre as also the officers of the Courts are vitally interested in
the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity
of the Courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the
proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest
or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said
provisions. Further cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by
personal vendetta and not in public interest will get filtered at that
level. If a motion of criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is
not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers,
the very purpose of the requirement of prior consent will be frustrated.
For a valid motion compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of the
Act is mandatory. A motion under Section 15 not in conformity with the
provisions of Section 15, is not maintainable. /See : Conscientious Group
v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 89 and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv
Shanker and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 167].
B.K. Misra vs Chief Justice, Orissa H.C. on 13 February, 1973
In this view of the matter, law has
been correctly laid down by the Orissa High Court in B.K. Misra v. Chief
Justice, Orissa High Court, AIR (1974) Orissa 1, The Patna High Court in
Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali
Ahmed, AIR (1986) Patna 65 and the Bombay High Court in Vishwanath v. E.S.
Venkatarmiah and Ors., (1990) Crl. L.J. 2179 Bombay. We may also note here
that non-compliance of Section 7 of the English Contempt of Court Act,
1981, referred to above, was held to be fatal to the action. [Borrie and
Lowe-The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn., P. 481 (Note 14)}.
Vishwanath vs E.S. Venkatramaih And Others on 2 March, 1990
In this view of the matter, law has
been correctly laid down by the Orissa High Court in B.K. Misra v. Chief
Justice, Orissa High Court, AIR (1974) Orissa 1, The Patna High Court in
Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali
Ahmed, AIR (1986) Patna 65 and the Bombay High Court in Vishwanath v. E.S.
Venkatarmiah and Ors., (1990) Crl. L.J. 2179 Bombay. We may also note here
that non-compliance of Section 7 of the English Contempt of Court Act,
1981, referred to above, was held to be fatal to the action. [Borrie and
Lowe-The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn., P. 481 (Note 14)}.
Section 2 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
1