Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Ranveer Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 12 May, 2010
The
learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer Yadav Vs. State of
Bihar, reported in 2010 (2) GLH 703 (SC) in support of his
argument that provision under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
must be given broad sweep so as to include within it every attempt
of the contemners to interfere with the due course of judicial
proceedings. It is submitted that having violated the order
deliberately, the respondents may not be allowed to defend the
Page 14 of 18
HC-NIC Page 14 of 18 Created On Thu Feb 16 00:14:01 IST 2017
C/MCA/3621/2016 JUDGMENT
contemptuous action, under the guise of refusal of registration by
applying rule, which is ex facie not applicable.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Principal, Rajni Parekh Arts, K.B. ... vs Mahendra Ambalal Shah on 4 April, 1986
14. Learned counsel Shri A.D. Oza placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal,
Rajni Parekh Arts, K.B. Commerce and BCJ Science College,
Khambhat and another Vs. Mahendra Ambalal Shah, reported
in (1986) 2 SCC 560, in support of his argument and contended
that in respect of blatant, wilful and deliberate violation of
directions issued by this Court, respondent no.1- contemner has not
even tendered apology. It is submitted that in the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, attempt to tender apology
at a belated stage was not accepted observing that it would
encourage litigants to flout the orders of the Court with impunity. It
is submitted that though respondent no.1 referred to Additional
Affidavit tendering apology, but such an apology is also conditional
one, only with regard to statements made by respondent no.1 in the
earlier Affidavit-in-Reply and Further Affidavit-in-Reply, but not
with reference to violation of directions issued by this Court.
1