contempt petition

This tag is associated with 8 posts

contempt of court = Warns=Advocate on record – refused to attend before the court when pressed his presence = An application for restoration of the said appeal was filed by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as AOR). The said application was listed in the Court on 8.7.2013. The Court was of the view that the facts contained in the application were not correct and the counsel appearing for the applicant was not able to clarify the same. The Court passed over the matter and asked the counsel appearing therein to call the AOR who would be able to explain the factual controversy. When the matter was taken up in the second round, the Court was informed that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR refused to come to the Court. It has also been pointed out that the said AOR has filed extremely large number of cases in this Court but never appears in the Court. In view of the refusal of the AOR to come to the Court, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the application. However, the Court issued a show cause notice to the said AOR as to why his name should not be removed from the register of AsOR, as his conduct was ‘unbecoming’ of an AOR. Prima facie, his conduct would tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice. Being an AOR, he ought to have appreciated that the institution of AsOR has been created under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and no one can appear in this Court except by the authority of an AOR; or unless instructed by an AOR. Considering the gravity of the issue involved herein, this Court also requested the Association of AsOR, through its President and Secretary, to assist the Court in dealing with this situation as our experience has been that some AsOR, who have filed a large number of cases have been lending their signatures for consideration and take no responsibility for the matter and never appear in the Court. 2. In response to the same, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR has filed his reply tendering an absolute and unconditional apology and has given an undertaking that he would not repeat such a mistake again in future. = At the time of hearing, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, not only tendered absolute and unconditional apology and promised not to repeat the misconduct in future but also assured the court that he would remain present in the court in all the cases where he had entered appearance for either of the parties. Some senior advocates and a large number of members of the Bar have also asked the Court to pardon him as he would abide by the undertaking given by him.- In view of above, though the conduct of Shri Goyal, AOR, has been reprehensible and not worth pardoning but considering the fact and circumstances involved herein, his conduct is censured and we warn him not to behave in future in such manner and to appear in court in all the cases wherever he has entered appearance. The court shall examine his conduct for one year from now and if no improvement is found, may initiate the proceedings again. With these observations, the matter stands closed for the time being.

 published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40678    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 312 of 2013   In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate     J U D G M E N T   Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005, Mohamed Israfil v. … Continue reading

contempt petition = At first sight the conduct of the respondent may indeed appear contumacious but, a careful scrutiny of the material facts makes it clear that respondent No.1 cannot really be held guilty of contempt.= we find it difficult to hold with any conviction that on the date the interim order of injunction was passed against the contemnor, there was, in fact, no money in his account with the PICTET& CIE, Geneva. However, one thing is clear from the decision of the Swiss Court; that is, on November 30, 1995, a sum of $2,81,00,000 was credited to the contemnor’s personal account from the amount deposited by the petitioner in the account of Karsan. We would like to see the bank statement of the contemnor’s Account No. 91925 held with PICTET & CIE Bank from November 30, 1995 till the date of the closure of the account on July 25, 2006 to see the inflow and outflow of money from that account. a copy of the bank statement certified by Pictet and Cie bank, Geneva. From the bank statement it appears that the entire amount in account No.91925 was withdrawn by June 21, 2006 and on that date, the balance had become nil. The bank has also issued a certificate dated September 13, 2010 stating that account No.91925 was closed in their books on July 25, 2006. = In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with Pictet in violation of this Court’s orders. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the respondent cannot be held guilty of contempt. 44. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court held that the respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet by flouting the orders of this Court, it is to be noted that that order is founded on the premise that the respondent had not denied the allegation made by the petitioner against him. It is, however, to be noted that the respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under: “The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 45. The order dated April 1, 2010, was, thus, clearly based on an erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled. 46. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the contempt petition. It is dismissed.


the promotional avenues for the teachers in Bihar Government Service.=The petition therefore prayed:- (1) for a direction to implement the decision contained in the notification dated 11.4.1977. (2) for a direction to prepare a combined gradation list of the Bihar Education Service Class II after placing the members of the Petitioner association in their appropriate places along with other constituents. (3) to restrain the respondents from acting upon the defective gradation list of 1995 (4) for the consequential reliefs, which meant increase in salary and allowances pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committees appointed from time to time.= The State Government carried the matter further to this Court in SLP Nos.4937-4938/2001, and this Court dismissed the two SLP’s by its order dated 16.4.2001 which reads as follows:- “CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N Kripal Hon’ble. Mrs Justice Ruma Pal “Upon hearing the counsel the court made the following ORDER It is clear that the final direction which has been given to the Petitioner to implement the resolution dated 27th April, 1977 in the manner it is meant to be implemented. The petitions are disposed of.” Second round of litigation 12. It is, however, seen that inspite of the orders passed as above, State of Bihar did not issue the necessary orders for merger of the subordinate cadre of teachers into the Bihar Education Service, and consequential rise in pay. The law of finality of decisions which is enshrined in the principle of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto, does not permit any such re-examination, and the learned Judge clearly failed to recognize the same. The attitude of the State Govt. in this matter has caused unnecessary anxiety to a large number of teachers. The State Govt. must realise that in a country where there is so much illiteracy and where there are a large number of first generation students, the role of the primary and secondary teachers is very important. They have to be treated honourably and given appropriate pay and chances of promotion. If the orders passed by this Court were not clear to the State Govt. or any party, it could have certainly approached this Court for the clarification thereof. But it could not have setup a contrary plea in a collateral proceeding. We do not expect such an approach from the State Govt. and least from the High Court. Having stated this, although we have expressed out displeasure about the approach of the State Government, we refrain from passing any order as to costs.

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 8226-8227 OF 2012 Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 26675-26676/2010 WITH I.A. Nos. 19-20/2011 Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association … Appellant Versus Bihar Education Service Association & Ors. … Respondents And Contempt Petition Nos. 386-387/2011 Bihar State Government Secondary … Continue reading

BT . BRINJAL ETC., Genetically Modified Organisms (for short ‘GMOs’)(1) There shall be the Technical Expert Committee, the constitution whereof shall be as follows: a. Prof. V.L. Chopra Specialization/Work Focus:Plant Biotechnology Genetics and Agricultural Science. Former Member, Planning Commission and Former Member, Science & Advisory Committee to the PMO, Recepient of several awards including the Padma Bhushan. b. Dr. Imran Siddiqui Specialization/Work Focus : Plant Development Biology Scientist & Group Leader, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) c. Prof. P.S. Ramakrishnan Emeritus Prof. JNU Work Focus : Environmental Sciences and Biodiversity. d. Dr. P.C. Chauhan, D.Phil (Sci) Work Focus : Genetics toxicology and food safety e. Prof. P.C. Kesavan Distinguished Fellow, MS SRF (Research Foundation), Emeritus Professor, CSD, IGNOU, New Delhi. Work Focus : Genetics Toxicology, Radiation Biology and Sustainable Science. f. Dr. B. Sivakumar Former Director, National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad. (2) The terms of reference of the said Committee shall be as follows: a. To review and recommend the nature of sequencing of risk assessment (environment and health safety) studies that need to be done for all GM crops before they are released into the environment. b. To recommend the sequencing of these tests in order to specify the point at which environmental release though Open Field Trials can be permitted. c. To advise on whether a proper evaluation of the genetically engineered crop/plants is scientifically tenable in the green house conditions and whether it is possible to replicate the conditions for testing under different agro ecological regions and seasons in greenhouse? d. To advise on whether specific conditions imposed by the regulatory agencies for Open Field Trials are adequate. If not, recommend what additional measures/safeguards are required to prevent potential risks to the environment. e. Examine the feasibility of prescribing validated protocols and active testing for contamination at a level that would preclude any escaped material from causing an adverse effect on the environment. f. To advise on whether institutions/laboratories in India have the state-of-art testing facilities and professional expertise to conduct various biosafety tests and recommend mechanism to strengthen the same. If no such institutions are available in India, recommend setting up an independent testing laboratory/institution. g. The Expert Committee would be free to review reports or studies authored by national and international scientists if it was felt necessary. The petitioners opined that they would like to formally propose three Expert Reports from Prof. David Andow, Prof. Jack Heinemann and Dr. Doug Gurian Sherman to be a formal part of the Committee’s deliberations. The MoEF may similarly nominate which experts they choose in this exercise. 3. The Court will highly appreciate if the said Committee submits its final report to the Court within three months from today. 4. The Committee may hear the Government, petitioners and any other intervenor in this petition, who, in the opinion of the Committee, shall help the cause of expeditious and accurate finalization of its report. 5. In the event and for any reason whatsoever, the Committee is unable to submit its final report to the Court within the time stipulated in this order, we direct that the Committee should instead submit its interim report within the same period to the Court on the following issue: “Whether there should or should not be any ban, partial or otherwise, upon conducting of open field tests of the GMOs? In the event open field trials are permitted, what protocol should be followed and conditions, if any, that may be imposed by the Court for implementation of open field trials.” 7. Let the matter stand over to 6th August, 2012.


REFERRED TO CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH =whether under Section 154 Cr.P.C., a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR. 110. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and different States have expressed totally divergent views even before this Court. This Court also 8

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.68 OF 2008   Lalita Kumari …Petitioner   Versus   Government of U.P. & Others …Respondents   WITH   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2011   Samshudheen …Appellant   Versus   State, Represented by Dy. Superintendent of Police Tamil Nadu …Respondent … Continue reading

Building Labour problems – contempt of court =most of the states have not complied with the directions issued by this Court. They had failed to discharge their statutory duties under the provisions of the Building & Other Construction Worker (Regulations of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act’) and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short `the Cess Act’), thus, they should be punished for violating the orders of this Court. = audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has not been conducted of the funds placed at the disposal of the concerned authority. We may also notice that large funds are lying with the said Welfare Boards/authorities, but have not been disbursed. The possibility of these amounts being diverted by the state authority for other heads of expenditure in the respective states/union territories cannot be ruled out. Resultantly, while reiterating our earlier orders, we also issue the following directions for their immediate compliance: a) All the State Welfare Boards shall be subjected to audit by the CAG within two months from today. All the States, Union Territories and the State Boards to initiate the process and ensure its completion under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. [8]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.318 OF 2006 National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH Contempt Petition (C) Nos.41/2011 in WP (C) No.318/2006 Contempt Petition (C) Nos.42/2011 in WP (C) No.318/2006 … Continue reading

This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) impugning the order dated 26.08.2010 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner of offence under Section 120-B read with Section 494 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).=under Section 13 of CPC a foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties except in cases specified thereunder. However the right if any to contend that the said foreign judgment is not conclusive can be only of the party who had himself / herself / itself not initiated the process of obtaining the said judgment and cannot be of a party at whose instance such foreign judgment has been obtained. No litigant can be allowed to abuse the process of the Courts or to approbate and reprobate as per convenience

CRL.M.C. 3845/2010 Page 1 of 8 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25th January, 2012 + CRL.M.C. 3845/2010 % DR. MEENA CHAUDHARY @ DR. MEENA P.N. SINGH ….. Petitioner Through: None. Versus BASANT KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING … Continue reading

whether T. Thomas Educational Trust, Perambur, Chennai, is in any way a Minority Educational Trust? And if so, whether the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was justified in framing a scheme for the administration of this trust under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC’ for short) by treating it as a Public Charitable Trust?=Having seen the scenario and the legal position, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view there was no error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court dated 5.12.2002 on O.S.A 49 of 1995 in holding that T. Thomas Educational Trust is a secular public charitable trust

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 6786 OF 2003 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22590-22591 OF 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 435 of 2004 Dr. T. Varghese George … Appellant Versus Kora K. George & Ors. … Respondents J U D G E M E N … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,903,093 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com