Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Contempt

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…

Contempt

Sentence Order :: “Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Simple Imprisonment. Held “Keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions we direct that this sentence shall come into force after 16 weeks from today when the contemnors should surrender before the Secretary General of this Court to undergo the imprisonment.Otherwise, warrants for their arrest shall be issued,”

May 6, 2020 sclaw

“Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Imprisonment The Court has sentenced Vijay Kurle, Rashid…

Contempt

No ill-founded sympathy for Advocates who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three Advocates guilty of Contempt of Court . HELD “both the complaints are ex facie contemptuous. Highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against the two judges of this Court. In our view, the entire contents of the complaints amount to contempt.”

Apr 27, 2020 sclaw

No ill-founded sympathy for Lawyers who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three lawyers guilty of Contempt of Court The Supreme Court has also observed in its…

Contempt

Initiation of contempt proceedings – Notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotion to the Members of the SC/ST communities – In the absence of any quantifiable data relating to the issue of backwardness and inadequacy of representation of the concerned classes in public employment, no benefit of consequential seniority could be extended

Jan 25, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRANG LAL SHARMA — Appellant Vs. C.K. MATHEW AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Contempt

Contempt Petition (Civil) -We do not see anything wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in pursuance of various interim orders passed by this Court and also in pursuance of the Judgment and final order dated 25.07.20171. The fact that out of 12,091 candidates only few could be selected and the reasons for non-selection of rest of the candidates, were part of the record since October 2016.

Dec 15, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAI KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. PRABHAT KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and M. R. Shah, JJ. )…

Contempt

Enforcement of the foreign award in Delhi High Court – Contempt petition – Disobeying the orders – Malvinder Mohan Singh (Contemnor Nos.9 and 12) and Shivinder Mohan Singh, (Contemnor Nos.10 and 13) have knowingly and wilfully violated the orders of this Court dated 11.08.2017, 31.08.2017 and 15.02.2018 as continued on 23.02.2018 – Therefore, this Court hold both of them guilty of committing Contempt of this Court

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VINAY PRAKASH SINGH — Appellant Vs. SAMEER GEHLAUT AND OTHER RESPONDENT ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

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