B.N. SHIVANNA versus ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

B.N. SHIVANNA versus ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

Appellant, as retained advocate for respondent-company, fabricated court orders and embezzled Rs. 72 lakhs, thereby interfering with administration of justice and committing criminal contempt; hyper-technical procedural objections regarding Rule 7 neither substantiated nor raised before the High Court and do not warrant consideration. Conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment by High Court is justified and upheld.

Parties
Appellant: B.N. Shivanna; Respondent: Advanta India Limited; Respondent: Advanta India Limited & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Conviction for Criminal Contempt
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Advocate's Duty, Fraud by Counsel, Interference With Administration of Justice
Contempt of Court Criminal Law Legal Ethics Criminal Contempt Advocate's Duty Fraud by Counsel Interference With Administration of Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.N. Shivanna

Appellant

Advanta India Limited

Respondent

Advanta India Limited & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Conviction for Criminal Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's conviction for criminal contempt by the High Court was justified?
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements under the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 7, were complied with?
  3. 3 Can new factual questions on procedure be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant, as retained advocate for respondent-company, fabricated court orders and embezzled Rs. 72 lakhs, thereby interfering with administration of justice and committing criminal contempt; hyper-technical procedural objections regarding Rule 7 neither substantiated nor raised before the High Court and do not warrant consideration. Conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment by High Court is justified and upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Appellant to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve remaining sentence forthwith.
  • Registry to transmit order to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore for execution.