Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Based on the counsel’s presence in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and others. In the long run, if the advocates who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly.”
“In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”- Supreme Court’s direction
The instant matter related to the non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s directives for the treatment and rehabilitation of Bhopal gas victims.
“The duty of the municipal authorities is to take concerted, sincere and optimum steps to ensure that such animals are rehabilitated and do not possess a menace to residents of Delhi or to the traffic plying on the roads.”
“An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC”, stated the Supreme Court
Madras High Court held that that the order passed in writ petition had been fundamentally modified by the order passed in the contempt petition, the effect of which resulted in a veiled attempt to sit in judgment/appeal over the order passed in the writ petition, which is not permissible in law.
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R Mahadevan and J Sathya Narayan Prasad, JJ. upheld the constitutional validity of Government Order
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and P.D. Audikesavalu, J. while addressing the contempt petition, expressed that, Merely
Supreme Court: B.R. Gavai, J., while addressing a contempt petition expressed that: “…contempt proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under the
Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., while addressing the contempt petition held that, “The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., while addressing a contempt petition held that, “…to constitute civil contempt,
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Division Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey and Dhiraj Singh Thakur, JJ. disposed of the appeal after
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SK Kaul and KM Joseph, JJ has closed the contempt petition filed
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Tashi Rabstan, J., dismissed the application filed for seeking stay of contempt proceedings pending
Manipur High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ, dismissed a contempt petition filed against the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sawombung