Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.71 seconds)
Dr. Eunice L Chawngthu vs The Iv Metropolitan Sessions Judge on 6 November, 2020 cites

Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997

50. The fact that the petitioner has chosen to even make exaggerated claim of sexual harassment, victimization on account of her Scheduled Tribe status and is seeking to invoke the guidelines of the Supreme Court about alleged sexual harassment in Vishaka (1 supra), and filing of cases against the respondent under the SC& St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also the Nirbahya Act,2013 shows her vindictive nature and the lengths to which the petitioner 8 (1984) 3 SCC 405 ::15::
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 569 - Full Document

M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors on 31 July, 1991

47. In several cases, the Supreme Court had observed that there is a dangerous trend in vogue of making false allegations against Judicial Officers and humiliating them and that such trend has to be curbed with heavy hand or otherwise the Judicial system itself would collapse. It has emphasized that Superior courts have a duty to protect the reputation of Judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by unscrupulous practicing Advocates who either failed to secure desired orders or did not succeed in brow beating the Judge for achieving ulterior purposes. It stated that such an issue touches upon independence of not only the Judicial Officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the Institution as a whole. It has held that foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it, will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity (M.B.Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana2 and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 85 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs State Of U.P on 15 June, 2011

47. In several cases, the Supreme Court had observed that there is a dangerous trend in vogue of making false allegations against Judicial Officers and humiliating them and that such trend has to be curbed with heavy hand or otherwise the Judicial system itself would collapse. It has emphasized that Superior courts have a duty to protect the reputation of Judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by unscrupulous practicing Advocates who either failed to secure desired orders or did not succeed in brow beating the Judge for achieving ulterior purposes. It stated that such an issue touches upon independence of not only the Judicial Officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the Institution as a whole. It has held that foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it, will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity (M.B.Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana2 and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 41 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

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

49. It also referred to its earlier decisions in L.D.Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P.8 wherein it had observed that it is yet to come across a Judge who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other; by the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or the other of the parties; and if the fact that he renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him in such risks, it will sound the death knell of the institution. It also observed that no sitting Judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes; and if the situation were to be countenanced, Advocates who can cow-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 119 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1