Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)

Bal Thackrey vs Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors on 29 November, 2004

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 provision. Further, cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by 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 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. ....." (2) Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 45 - Full Document
1