Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors on 31 July, 1991 cites

Hari Chand Walaiti Ram vs Small Town Committee, Gidderbaha And ... on 12 June, 1953

The appellant, who is practising as an Advocate at Narnaul, was representing the plaintiff in Civil Suit titled Hari Ram v. Municipal Committee. On September 20, 1985, the appellant appeared in the said suit for the plaintiff and orally prayed for ex-parte ad:interim stay. The said request was declined by the Subordinate Judge, Narnaul, who ordered for issuance of notice to the defendants for September 24,1985. On September 24, 1985, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma ap- peared for the defendants and requested for a date for filing a reply to the said application which request was not opposed by the appellant but the appellant prayed for ad- interim stay in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge told the appellant that the question of ad-interim stay would be considered after filing of the reply by the defendants and adjourned the case for September 26, 1985. It appears that the appellant was not satisfied with this order passed by the Subordinate Judge and according to the Subor- dinate Judge, Shri S.R. Sharma, the appellant uttered the following words in the Court:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984

Soft-justice is not the answer--not that the High Court has been harsh with him-what I mean is he cannot be let off on an apology which is far from sincere His apology was follow, there was no remorse--no regret--it was only a device to escape the rigour of the law. What he said in his affidavit was that he had not uttered the words attributed to him by the learned 317 Judge; in other words the learned judge was lying--adding insult to injury--and yet if the court finds him guilty (he contested the matter tooth and nail) his unqualified apology may be accepted. This is no apology, it is merely a device to escape. The High Court rightly did not accept it. That is what this Court had done in a similar situation in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [ 1984] 3 SCC 405. This Court described it as a 'paper apology and refused to accept it in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 119 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1