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 courts

BINDU KAPUREA versus SUBHASHISH PANDA & ORS.

The Court found that unauthorised felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge and the deliberate non-disclosure during court proceedings amounted to wilful disobedience and criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; however, applying proportionality and considering overriding public interest in completion and use of CAPFIMS, the Court closed contempt proceedings and imposed restorative and supervisory measures including afforestation, ecological restoration under an independent Committee, periodic compliance reporting, environmental fees by responsible officials, and de…

Source excerpt

  • Tree felling
  • Ridge forest
  • Compensatory afforestation
  • Contempt proceedings
  • Public interest
  • Ecological restoration
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN versus HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

The Court affirmed the High Court's finding that appellants either used or created forged interim orders of the High Court and that the contempt was proved beyond all reasonable doubt; the contempt proceedings were not time-barred as initiation is treated as 05.09.2018 under the rationale of Pallav Sheth; conviction is confirmed but sentence reduced from six months to one month simple imprisonment.

Source excerpt

  • Criminal contempt
  • Suo motu contempt
  • Forgery and impersonation
  • Limitation under section 20 contempt of courts act, 1971
  • Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
  • Sentence modification
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS. versus PRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT

Where a Single Judge in contempt proceedings both makes a finding of contempt (without imposition of punishment) and makes a crystallized finding on the merits (here, entitlement to promotion to the rank of IG) such merits determination is amenable to challenge by an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal); accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable and was restored for consideration on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Section 19 contempt of courts act
  • Letter patent appeal
  • Reinstatement
  • Promotion entitlement
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS versus ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the State to notify Rules purportedly framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229 (which does not empower framing rules for post-retiral benefits of former judges); invocation of criminal contempt against state officials for filing a recall application was not warranted (non-compliance at most could be civil contempt and the facts did not meet that threshold); courts must exercise restraint in summoning government officials and the SOP framed by this Court is to guide such appearances.

Source excerpt

  • Summoning of government officials
  • Criminal contempt
  • Civil contempt
  • Post-retiral benefits of judges
  • Article 229
  • Standard operating procedure on personal appearance of government officials
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

P R ADIKESAVAN versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER

The appellant, a member of the Bar, was guilty of criminal contempt by obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and preventing police from executing a lawful order; the conviction under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the sentence of two weeks simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 2,000 and debarment from practice in the Madras High Court for one year were upheld as not disproportionate.

Source excerpt

  • Criminal contempt
  • Obstruction of administration of justice
  • Recusal applications
  • Debarment from practice
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND versus DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANOTHER

Respondent No.1 (Dharmesh S. Jain) was held guilty of wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court orders and sentenced to seven days simple imprisonment; a fine of Rs.5,00,000 was imposed to be deposited before the Bombay High Court within two weeks, with Rs.4,00,000 to be paid to the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000 to be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority; the sentence is kept in abeyance for two weeks and will take effect if compliance does not occur, in which event respondent No.1 shall surrender to undergo the sentence.

Source excerpt

  • Wilful disobedience
  • Sentence
  • Compliance with court orders
  • Amicable settlement
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN THROUGHITS SECRETARY versus ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) does not entitle advocates to go on strike or boycott courts when such action prejudices litigants and impedes the right to speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21; boycotting courts as conducted in the districts at issue amounts to contempt and the High Court's directions directing withdrawal of strike calls and disciplinary action by Bar Councils were justified; accordingly the SLP was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Right to strike
  • Advocates' strikes and boycotts
  • Speedy justice
  • Bar councils' disciplinary powers
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara engaged in conduct amounting to contempt in the face of the Court; summary contempt principles (as in Leila David (6)) permit immediate action, but in the interest of justice the Court issued notice to the advocate as to punishment; the writ petition was dismissed because it amounted to an impermissible second review (Order XLVII r.5) and Article 32 does not lie against this Court's judgment, and Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is not unconstitutional.

Source excerpt

  • Contempt in the face of the court
  • Designation of senior advocate
  • Second review petitions
  • Article 32 jurisdiction
  • Summary contempt proceedings
Read case analysis
Contempt of courts

TAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE versus HEROMONI MONDAL AND ANR.

On the facts there was reasonable doubt whether the appellant acted wilfully to disobey the High Court's interim order; the Court gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt, set aside the High Court's conviction and fine, and ordered return of the deposited fine while emphasising the duty of government officers to comply vigilantly with court orders.

Source excerpt

  • Compliance with court orders
  • Wilful disobedience
  • Inadvertence as a defence
  • Police protection
  • Cultivation rights
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.