Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The contemnors apologised and stated that the entire incident is quite unfortunate and though facts have been misrepresented before the instant Court, however, they do not intend to disobey the orders of the Court and that the respondents have great respect for the Court.
The present contempt proceedings are pending adjudication since 2006 and all the alleged Contemnors have expressed their deep remorse and have stated that they have the utmost respect for the institution of judiciary and that it was never their intention to cause any distress or to do anything that could be construed as undermining the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law.
Allahabad High Court said that the facts prima facie shows that the act of the Advocate amounts to criminal contempt referred to in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
In a case of circulating malicious, libelous and derogatory videos pertaining to the judicial proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the arrest of dismissed DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon and another. The Court also directed global blocking of access to all the videos circulated so far.
by B. Shravanth Shanker† and Monalisa Kosaria††
The Delhi High Court had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)’s inquiry revealed that the defendants placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s Order on record.
Orissa High Court: The division bench comprising of S. Talapatra and S.K. Panigrahi, JJ. directed for the issue of notice
Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., expressed that Just because the photograph of the summons were sent by the plaintiff to the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by
by Nihit Singhal†
“Such litigants cannot be permitted to have their way only because they can plead and write anything they feel like and keep on approbating by sometimes apologising and then again bringing forth those allegations.”
“Any report of the press/media, having the propensity of tilting the balance against fair and impartial “administration of justice”, could make a mockery of the justice delivery system rendering ‘truth’ a casualty. “
by Raghavendra S. Srivatsa*
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has issued notice to cartoonist Rachita Taneja
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): A Division Bench of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and A.K. Bishnoi (Administrative Member) took Suo Motu cognizance
Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that there may not be an actual interference with
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari has reserved its verdict on sentence after it found
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has been held guilty of contempt of court for his contemptuous tweets has refused to retract his statements