Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Contempt

Constitution Contempt

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 — Sections 3 and 4 — The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a writ petition against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for spreading misinformation about modern medicine — Whether Patanjali violated court orders by continuing to make misleading claims about their products’ medicinal efficacy —IMA argued that Patanjali continued to make false claims about their products despite court orders prohibiting such actions — Patanjali and its representatives claimed that any misleading statements were inadvertent and offered apologies — The court found Patanjali in contempt for violating its orders and issued further restrictions on their advertising practices — The court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of the judiciary and preventing misleading advertisements —The court referred to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and relevant case law to justify its decision —Patanjali was found in contempt, and further measures were imposed to ensure compliance with court orders.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 605 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF : INDIAN…

Bail Granted Contempt

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 588 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH — Appellant Vs. KAMAL DAYANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Contempt

“Subhasish Panda, DDA Vice Chairman appears before the court and accepts that not only the trees on the land vesting in the DDA were felled but even trees on the area of forest were felled. We direct the VC to file his personal affidavit on remedial measures which he proposes to take. Prima facie, this would amount to criminal contempt however, we’ll pass appropriate order in this regard on the next date.”

May 26, 2024 sclaw

ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION…

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – ‘civil contempt’ – This case involves a dispute related to contempt of court arising from a stay order passed in an appeal – The Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the High Court had overstepped its contempt jurisdiction by vacating the stay order – The matter was remanded to the High Court to address the contempt issue appropriately

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Legal proceedings related to criminal contempt of court – The case involves a practicing advocate and former army personnel who was convicted by the High Court of Delhi under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – considering the appellant’s age and health conditions, the this Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court – The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and protecting them from unfounded allegations that interfere with the administration of justice

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GULSHAN BAJWA — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Contempt I B C

HELD The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and…

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt” – There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness.

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

Contempt

Contempt of Court – Maximum Punishment — Simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000/- — Sub-Section (2) reads “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” this implies that save and except the punishment provided in sub-Section (1) no other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court.

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: B.R. Gavai & Sanjay Karol, JJ. Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13789 of 2022) Decided on: 28.07.2023 Gostho Behari Das – Appellant…

Contempt

Contempt of Court – Deliberate and willful disobedience of order – Direction issued to Telangana Power Utilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to pay salary and other service benefits to the petitioners from the day they are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, to be implemented within two weeks.

Oct 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. D. PRABHAKARA RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw