Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Contempt

Contempt

Civil Contempt – Contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court – It has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful” HELD not open to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction, which course could be adopted only in review jurisdiction and not contempt proceedings.

Jun 6, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. G. PATTANAIK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Contempt Petition…

Contempt

To avoid any further controversy, it will be appropriate that the appropriate authority shall communicate to the Seth Group and the Mittal Group within a period of two weeks from today, to provide the documents/undertakings with respect to the lands falling to their respective shares and the Seth Group and Mittal Group shall provide the documents and/or undertakings required

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHISH SETH — Appellant Vs. SUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS – ALLEGED CONTEMNORS ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Contempt Petition(C)…

Contempt

Attempt on part of the fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction – This Court direct fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to appear before this Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m

Sep 1, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. VIJAY MALLYA — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ashok Bhushan,…

Contempt

Tweets against CJI – Guilty of contempt – Act committed by the contemnor is a very serious one – The Court do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country – However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, The Court is sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Re. 1/ (Rupee one).

Aug 31, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal)…

Contempt

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S) “When the foundation itself is sought to be shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years” HELD we hold alleged contemnor No.1 – Mr. Prashant Bhushan guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court.

Aug 14, 2020 sclaw

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S) “In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India…

Contempt

HELD “Suffice it to observe that to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom” – It is well­-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable”.

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION — Appellant Vs. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 – Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Rule 3 – Suit for permanent injunction, possession and for recovery of rent and damages/mesne profits till the recovery of possession – This Court find force in the explanation offered by the respondent that as per its bona fide understanding, there was no outstanding dues payable to the petitioner – Moreover, as observed by the High Court, these aspects could be answered by the executing Court if the parties pursue their claim(s) before it in that regard

May 8, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HUKUM CHAND DESWAL — Appellant Vs. SATISH RAJ DESWAL — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Contempt Petition…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw