Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April, 1988
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14743-DB
CRL.CCC No. 100002 of 2023
be when the concerned learned Advocate General has
refused consent in writing unlike in P. N. Duda's case
where no orders were issued either giving consent or
refusing.
Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Bal Thackrey vs Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors on 29 November, 2004
10.1 The Apex Court, in Bal Thackrey vs.
Harish Pimpalkhute and others [supra], has indeed
referred to the decision in State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani
and others in reiterating that obtaining the consent of the
learned Advocate General in writing for making a motion
under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is
mandatory, but the Apex Court has also referred to its
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
State Of Kerala vs M.S. Mani And Ors on 6 September, 2001
10.1 The Apex Court, in Bal Thackrey vs.
Harish Pimpalkhute and others [supra], has indeed
referred to the decision in State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani
and others in reiterating that obtaining the consent of the
learned Advocate General in writing for making a motion
under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is
mandatory, but the Apex Court has also referred to its