Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April, 1988
[a] P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shanker & others [(1988) 3
SCC 167], and
[b] Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & others [2005
(1) Mh.L.J., 322].
Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
J. R. Parashar, Advocate & Ors vs Prasant Bhushan, Advocate & Ors on 28 August, 2001
As observed in the case of J.R.
Parashar, Adv., & others Vs. Prasant Bhushan, Adv., and
others [(2001) 6 SCC 735], the underlying rationale of
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 15 appears to be that
when the Court is not itself directly aware of the
contumacious conduct, and the actions are alleged to have
taken place outside its precincts, it is necessary to have
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:37:52 :::
9
Conp.5/2012
the allegations screened by the prescribed authorities so
that Court is not troubled with the frivolous matters.
S. K. Sarkar, Member, Board Of Revenue, ... vs Vinay Chandra Misra on 12 December, 1980
The
same view was taken in the case of S.K. Sarkar, Member,
Board of Revenue, UP, Lucknow Vs. Vinay Chandra Misra
[(1981) 1 SCC 436]. We are inclined to agree with the
opinion expressed by the Advocate General. We, thus,
respectfully follow the above legal position expounded by
the Apex Court and hold that the present Contempt Petition
cannot be treated as suo motu contempt petition.
Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 April, 1998
4.
We have perused the decisions cited before us. We
have also perused the material, which, according to the
petitioner, amounts to interference in the Administration
of Justice. We have gone through the communication dated
15th October, 2012 refusing consent. It would be
appropriate to quote the following proposition of law
contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India &
another [(1998) 4 SCC 409], which reads thus:-
Bal Thackrey vs Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors on 29 November, 2004
[a] P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shanker & others [(1988) 3
SCC 167], and
[b] Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & others [2005
(1) Mh.L.J., 322].
Conscientious Group vs Mohammed Yunus And Ors. on 8 May, 1987
In the case of Conscientious
Group Vs. Mohammed Yunus & others [AIR 1987 SC 1451], the
Apex Court in para 8 observed with reference to the refusal
of consent by the Solicitor General of India that elaborate
reasons have been stated by the learned Solicitor General
in support of his conclusion that it would not be in the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:37:52 :::
8
Conp.5/2012
public interest to give his consent to the initiation of
the contempt proceedings. It further said after
scrutinizing the reasons given by the learned Solicitor
General, we are of opinion that the grounds stated by the
Solicitor General for declining to grant consent cannot be
said to be irrelevant in the eye of law, nor can the view
expressed by the Solicitor General be characterized as
arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. The material on the
basis of which the petitioner has prayed this Court to take
suo motu action for contempt does not, in our opinion,
constitute interference in the administration of justice,
nor the same amounts to scandalization of the Court. It is
well settled that the suo motu action for contempt should
normally be taken in rare cases and further use of suo motu
power frequently will render the procedural safeguards of
the consent of Advocate General nugatory. The whole object
of prescribing procedural safeguards is to safeguard the
valuable time of the Court from being wasted by frivolous
contempt petition.
1