Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court issue the ‘Rule NISI’ for non-compliance with Court orders to deploy central forces for election security during West Bengal Panchayat Election 2023.
“Politicians play an influential role in the life of a common man. The words and actions of a politician has an impact on his followers, party men and public at large. It is imperative that this power is not to be misused for illegal and personal gains”
The Supreme Court strongly criticised litigants who use ‘apology’ as a ‘potent weapon’ to evade punishment and expressed concern over the trend of courts showing excessive leniency towards those held in contempt.
“Plantation of trees is one such exercise which this Court would consider for countenancing contemnors’ act of contempt, because trees, for as long as they are alive, be it for decades or for centuries, would incessantly and silently provide multiple benefits to the people.”
“The parties seeking divorce by mutual consent shall not be compelled to furnish or withdraw their consent for a decree of dissolution of marriage since the key and chief component for such a decree is free and unblemished consent.”
The Calcutta High Court had upheld the suspension of the licence of a medical practitioner who was found guilty of contempt of Court.
Supreme Court said that it will take recourse to the coercive arm of law, if any such incident occurs in the future. Also warned that there shall be no impediment in the work of legal defense counsel.
The Court directed the SHO, Tilak Marg to issue warrants of arrest against Veer Singh and shall also get the Look Out circular issued against him as he was not willing to comply with the orders of this Court.
As a Court of record, the High Court is attributed only with the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of Courts Subordinate to it and not the Court which is superior to it.
Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that to avoid any undue disposal of the proceedings pending before the Revenue Courts wherein the intention of a party in possession of the land is to delay the proceedings, issuance of specific guidelines is necessary.
Two PWD officials were sentenced under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and two months respectively, along with fine of Rs. 2000 each as they wilfully disobeyed the directions and orders passed by the Delhi High Court and of the NGT, in relation to protection of trees.
The contempt petition against the US resident was outcome of matrimonial dispute as he had committed breach of settlement orders and showed scant respect for the Court by defying the orders of the Court.
The Delhi High Court held that the Special Commissioner Transport; the Chief Secretary; and the Secretary Labour of the Delhi Government were guilty of Contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of High Court’s order, directing them to enhance staff’s minimum wage.
Allahabad High Court said that the facts prima facie shows that the act of the Advocate amounts to criminal contempt referred to in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Recently, in a matter one of the advocates of the petitioner was recorded as “Mr. Put Mine, Advocate”. Taking note of the mistake that caused lot of embarrassment to the Court as the same was widely circulated on WhatsApp and other social media, the Court initiated proceedings suo moto.
Justice Aniruddha Bose who celebrates his 64th birthday today, had served the High Courts of Calcutta and Jharkhand as a Judge prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.
7-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court said that the Kanpur Lawyers by using abusive unparliamentary language and outrageous behavior during the strike period, scandalised and lowered the authority of the Court and undermined the sanctity of the Institution and the dignity of the entire district judiciary, have committed the contempt of Court.
7-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court said that despite sincere efforts being made by this Court, the lawyers are adamant not to perform their work in the Court and their actions are creating hurdle in dispensation of justice, which is nothing but a sort of contempt of Court.
Delhi High Court observed that the respondent is a law graduate enrolled with the State Bar Council and despite being aware of the binding nature of the orders of the Court has shown scant regard for the legal process.
Madras High Court held that that the order passed in writ petition had been fundamentally modified by the order passed in the contempt petition, the effect of which resulted in a veiled attempt to sit in judgment/appeal over the order passed in the writ petition, which is not permissible in law.