Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh vs D. Seshagiri Rao on 17 September, 1965
bias, dishonesty, etc to the officer. Further, in a proceeding for contempt, truth is no defence at all. In the earlier case against this very
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 136 (0.70 seconds)Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, ... vs Rachapudi Subba Rao on 12 November, 1990
Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, ... vs Rachapudi Subba Rao on 12 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ613
Advocate-General, Andhra Pradesh, ... vs V. Ramana Rao on 24 December, 1965
founded in the view of the object which the law of contempt and contempt proceedings have in view. The object is to ensure that ... that Courts have held that justification by truth is not a defence in contempt proceedings. Vide
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs G.M. Anjaiah on 9 May, 1996
27th and 28th of February, 1996 which boycott calls also are contemptible as they tended to interfere with the administration of justice ... even an iota of truth in what the respondent says and we hold unhesitatingly that the respondent not only committed contempt, but aggravated the same
State Of A.P. vs Mandalupu Ramaiah on 23 September, 2003
Section 2(b) defines 'Contempt of Court" to mean any civil or criminal contempt. 'Criminal contempt' defined in Section ... judicial process. He has no regard for truth. From stage to stage, he committed contempt of the Court by making false statements. Being a responsible
In vs Dated:13-08-2013
petitioner had committed contempt scandalizing the Court besides interfering
with the course of justice.
V. ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION - TRUTH OF THE RECORDS ... that their
truth is not to be called in question............
Every superior court of record has authority to fine and imprison for contempt
S.Apsara vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 19 March, 2014
petitioner seems to have committed the cardinal sin of
invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court twice over initially by
filing ... game of technicalities
with prevarications and half-truths. We all sincerely believe that
contempt is a corrective devise and a curative mechanism of compelling
Y.V. Hanumantha Rao vs K.R. Pattabhiram And Anr. on 3 September, 1973
said article amounts to contempt of Court and therefore the respondents should be punished.
6. Now, the law on contempt is well settled. When litigation ... true, still it is a contempt of Court if he prejudices the truth before it is as-certained in the proceedings. To this general rule
D. Jones Shield vs N. Ramesam And Ors. on 28 January, 1955
guilty of contempt of Court. The Public Prosecutor in the present case, therefore, did nothing more than his duty when he answered truthfully ... conduct amounts to interference in the adminstration of justice and consequently to contempt of court. The same remarks apply to a person who communicates
N. Venkata Swamy Naidu vs Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 21 September, 2007
date on which contempt is committed, it would amount to initiation of contempt proceedings within limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts ... contempt, the contempt case as filed cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT:
Contempt