Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Contempt of court

DHARMENDRA SHARMA versus M. ARUNMOZHI & ANR.

Because respondent no.2 conceded that the refund rejection was based on a bona fide interpretation of Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, tendered an unconditional apology and undertook to implement this Court's directions, the Court directed respondent no.2 to refund Rs.3,99,100 to the petitioner upon return of the non-judicial stamp papers within two months and closed the contempt petitions against respondent no.1.

Source excerpt

  • Refund of non-judicial stamp papers
  • Willful non-compliance
  • Implementation of supreme court directions
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

IN RE: N. PEDDI RAJU AND OTHERS versus

Because scandalous and scurrilous allegations had been made against the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the Transfer Petition, the Court issued show cause notice, accepted that affidavits of apology had been filed to this Court but held that the appropriate course was to permit the alleged contemnors to tender unconditional apologies before the concerned learned Judge of the High Court; the Registrar General of the High Court was directed to reopen the disposed Criminal Petition only for the limited purpose of allowing the alleged contemnors to tender those apologies within prescrib…

Source excerpt

  • Scandalous allegations against judge
  • Transfer petition practice
  • Apology in contempt proceedings
  • Duties of counsel
  • Status and protection of high court judges
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

TATA MOHAN RAO versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.

The appellant was rightly convicted for contempt for willfully and deliberately disobeying specific High Court orders and evicting occupants in a manner that undermined the rule of law; however, in view of the severe collateral consequences on his family and children, the conviction is affirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is modified to a reduction in rank and imposition of a substantial fine, to serve both the ends of justice and mitigate undue hardship.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Demolition
  • Contempt
  • Disobedience of court orders
  • Rule of law
  • Humanitarian consideration
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. versus ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

The Division Benchs prima facie direction to the appellant to take down/delete the pages and discussions was disproportionate and unsustainable: given the strong constitutional value of open justice and freedom of speech, and the principles requiring necessity and proportionality before ordering postponement or preventive removal, the impugned directions in paragraph 5 of the High Court order dated 16.10.2024 are set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Sub judice principle
  • Interference in court proceedings
  • Preventive injunction
  • Postponement order
  • Intermediary liability (raised)
  • Open justice
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus SHAJI AUGUSTINE

The Respondent was in possession of the property, ran the resort and derived income, sought account details after the 07.11.2022 order but made no payments, and his conduct demonstrated deliberate, mala fide non-compliance and misuse of judicial process; therefore he was found guilty of civil contempt and punished (3 months simple imprisonment and INR 20,000 fine) with 30 days allowed to purge contempt by complying with the 07.11.2022 order.

Source excerpt

  • Civil contempt
  • Wilful disobedience
  • Use and occupation charges
  • Settlement agreement
  • Misuse of court process
Read case analysis
Professional misconduct

N. ESWARANATHAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

The Bench found that the Advocate-on-Record P. Soma Sundaram misused the process of law by filing a second SLP after dismissal of the first and, along with his colleague S. Muthukrishnan and the petitioner, caused obstruction to administration of justice; Justice Bela M. Trivedi directed removal of the AOR’s name from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for one month, imposition of a Rs.100,000 cost on the colleague to be deposited with SCAORA and issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma accepted the unconditional apologies and imposed warnings…

Source excerpt

  • Advocate-on-record
  • Acceptance of apology
  • Misuse of process of law
  • Order iv rule 10 of the supreme court rules, 2013
  • Register of advocates-on-record
Read case analysis
Insolvency law

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED versus PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS.

The Court held that the demands raised by the respondents for periods prior to the date on which the NCLT approved the resolution plan were contemptuous because under the law declared in Ghanshyam Mishra all claims not included in an approved resolution plan stand extinguished and cannot be the subject of recovery proceedings; consequently the demand notices and all proceedings pursuant thereto were illegal and are quashed and set aside, although no punitive action was taken against the respondents who tendered unconditional apology.

Source excerpt

  • Resolution plan approval
  • Extinguishment of claims not included in resolution plan
  • Statutory dues
  • Demand notices
  • Binding effect of approved resolution plan
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

SMT. LAVANYA C & ANR. versus VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

The undertaking given by counsel on 11 July 2007 (reiterated 13 August 2007) was made an order of the Trial Court on 17 November 2007 and extended thereafter; the appellants alienated the subject property despite that order and, having not sought discharge of the order earlier, were rightly held guilty of disobedience of the undertaking/order and liable for contempt. The High Court's contempt finding is confirmed but the sentence of three months' civil imprisonment was deleted and compensation increased to Rs.13,00,000 with simple interest @6% from 2 August 2013; attachment of the subject pro…

Source excerpt

  • Disobedience of undertaking
  • Order xxxix rule 2a cpc
  • Temporary injunction
  • Civil contempt
  • Undertaking without requisite authority from client
  • Alienation of subject matter property
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

CELIR LLP versus MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

This Court held that (a) the 9th auction and the sale confirmed in favour of the petitioner were lawful and the sale certificate dated 27.09.2023 conferred absolute title; (b) the Assignment Agreement dated 28.08.2023 executed during pendency of petitioner’s Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal was hit by lis pendens and is void; (c) respondents’ acts in attempting to frustrate implementation amounted to contumacious conduct though, in view of subsequent withdrawals/undertakings, the Court declined to convict them of contempt at this stage and instead issued restitutive and compulsory directio…

Source excerpt

  • Wilful disobedience
  • Lis pendens
  • Constructive res judicata (henderson principle)
  • Sale by auction under sarfaesi
  • Sale certificate
  • Doctrine of election
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. versus P. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.

The Court found that respondents deliberately delayed and failed to implement the clear directions of this Court (orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022) to issue TDR as per the TDR Rules and guidance/market value under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; respondents were held to have acted contumaciously in part, and the Court directed respondent authorities (BBMP/competent authority) to issue TDR in favour of respective claimants at the guidance values noticed in the judgment within six weeks, recalled the additional condition imposed by the Court's order dated 19.03.2024 to that…

Source excerpt

  • Wilful disobedience
  • Issuance of tdr
  • Compliance of court orders
  • Modification of orders
  • Valuation of land
  • Suppressio veri suggestio falsi
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.