Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The present case is a gross case wherein for six years, the contemnor in every possible manner avoided complying with the orders of the Court.
“Instances of this kind pose a serious challenge to the very functioning of the judicial system and the incident has to be viewed seriously”
The High Court warned that law publishers who fail to be careful while publishing statutory instruments, may end up inviting contempt proceedings in addition to being blacklisted from public tenders for supply of books.
Delhi High Court noted that after coming to know that the said document was manufactured, respondent 1 filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate.
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.
The impugned judgment was based on an undertaking agreed between the parties wherein Cinema Ventures were to pay the default amount, failing which the right to walk, take over and run the cinema hall will be owned by Dart Properties Private Limited.
The Delhi High Court observed that Cinema Ventures Private Limited, the defaulting entity, neither filed the undertaking as assured to the court nor made any payment but rather continued to be in the possession of the property.
The High Court issued a contempt notice against an Advocate and a civic official, who acted on her request, after observing that a lawyer’s letter asking for a designated area within the Bombay High Court premises in Nagpur to feed dogs was for “publicity”.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by CROSSFIT gym (‘Plaintiff’) having CROSSFIT trademarks seeking permanent injunction against defendant gym using the
Kerala High Court: In a PIL seeking extension of facilities to every person with a disability in need of special assistance irrespective
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian, JJ. held a Police Officer guilty of
“Laws like sedition, need narrower and stricter interpretation and acts charged of should reflect something more than expressing discontent against State.”
Telangana High Court: A Division Bench of P Naveen Rao and M G Priyadarshini, JJ. dismissed the petition and held that contempt
Delhi High Court: Whether the third party can be absolved from contempt if they are informed that their conduct would violate the
Allahabad High Court: While enunciating that “Nobility and contribution to freedom struggle of our nation are the two attributes which rush to
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ., decided upon a petition which was in reference
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has temporarily restored the senior designation of Advocate Yatin
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh, J., discharged the contempt notice and accepted the unconditional apology. The present petition was filed suo
Supreme Court: Explaining the doctrine of merger in case of dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), the bench of L. Nageswara Rao