Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Murray And Co vs Ashok Kr. Newatia And Anr on 25 January, 2000
20. Having noticed the explanations tendered and apology offered, let us notice the legal position in this regard. It is now fairly well settled that a party taking recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings and the same constitutes interference in the administration of justice. Making of a false statement on oath deliberately also constitutes criminal contempt. Reference may be made to Murray & Company v. Ashok Kumar Newatia and Anr. Reported at .
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
The responsibility of the members of the Bar for keeping the stream of justice pure and unsullied is far greater than that of the litigants. Reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma reported at :
State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc vs U.P. State Law Officers Association And ... on 25 January, 1994
21. Coming to the role of advocates and counsel vis-a-vis the courts and administration of justice, it may be observed that the Judge and counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the Judge holding the reins, the movement itself is facilitated by the counsel and litigants, without which the chariot of justice may not move and may even collapse. Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar smoothen the movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the court, the counsel have an overall obligation of assisting the courts in a just and proper manner, in the just and proper administration of justice. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association emphasized upon the role of counsel:
Advocate General, State Of Bihar vs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd on 5 March, 1980
The tenor of the reply was that the plaintiff was the aggrieved party on account of the fraud practiced by the defendants. He submits that receipt of the amounts advanced has not been denied by the defendant. He submitted that after discovering the defects in the documents, he advised the plaintiff to withdraw the suits. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Anr. reported at , he submitted that every abuse of the process may not amount to contempt of Court. It was only abuse of the process, which was calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice, which would amount to contempt of Court. Remedy for frivolous and vexatious proceedings and other minor abuses was striking out of pleadings or staying of the proceedings etc. Dr. Vohra in his affidavit submitted that he is a law abiding officer of the Court and has a blemish-less career of decades as a counsel and had never fallen foul of law. He sought discharge of the notice of contempt based on the above submissions. He submitted that if despite the above submissions, the Court was of the view that there was a lapse on his part as a counsel, he be permitted to tender unconditional and unqualified apology.
B.K. Gupta vs Damodar H. Bajaj And Ors. on 10 January, 2001
2. Again in Phiroze Dinshaw Lam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported at , the Supreme Court set aside the direction for prosecution and instead directed payment of penal interest at the rate of 20% p.a. on all the amounts which were withheld by it. Also in B.K. Gupta v. Damodar H Bajaj the Supreme Court observed that there are two conditions on fulfilllment of which a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court. Firstly, that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the Court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him. It was observed as follows:
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005
2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail or the defense of the plaintiff as the same has been recapitulated and considered at length while dealing with the suo motu contempt notices and recorded hereinbefore. The course of initiating an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.PC is adopted only if the interest of justice so requires, and not in every case. Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence under Section 195(1)(b). The following observations of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah reported at are relevant:
Phiroze Dinshaw Lam Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 February, 1996
2. Again in Phiroze Dinshaw Lam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported at , the Supreme Court set aside the direction for prosecution and instead directed payment of penal interest at the rate of 20% p.a. on all the amounts which were withheld by it. Also in B.K. Gupta v. Damodar H Bajaj the Supreme Court observed that there are two conditions on fulfilllment of which a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court. Firstly, that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the Court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him. It was observed as follows:
1