Category: 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.”

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 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

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 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

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.…

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

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.