Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.36 seconds)
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs State Of U.P on 15 June, 2011 cites

The Aligarh Municipal Board And Ors. vs Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union And Ors. on 4 August, 1970

11. It is settled principle of law that it is the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnor and degree of harm caused to the administration of justice, which would decisively determine whether the matter should be tried as a criminal contempt or not. (Vide: The Aligarh Municipal Board & Ors. v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1767).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 86 - I D Dua - Full Document

Brahma Prakash Sharma And Others vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 May, 1953

12. The court has to examine whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. The act will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. (See: Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. The State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10; and Perspective Publications (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 132 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc on 11 September, 1991

In the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 2176, this Court held that the power to punish for contempt is vested in the judges not for their personal protection only, but for the protection of public justice, whose interest 8 requires that decency and decorum is preserved in courts of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 83 - Cited by 205 - K N Singh - Full Document

O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 9 May, 2011

"Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with license to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the Judiciary". A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the Institution of judiciary. An Advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an Advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an Advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. (Vide: O.P. Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (2011) 5 SCALE 518).
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 76 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next