Judgments - Contempt of Court
SATISH MAHADEORAO UKE Vs THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF BOMAY AND ORS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA & ANR
VITUSAH OBEROI & ORS. Vs. COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION
BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. Vs. S. L. SEAL & ORS.
RAM NARESH RAWAT Vs. SRI ASHWINI RAY AND ORS.
From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by Full Judgment
SITA RAM Vs. BALBIR @ BALI
LOMESH VIDYA SAGAR Vs. COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH, THROUGH IT
REENA KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.
GHANSHYAM SARDA Vs. SASHIKANT JHA, DIRECTOR M/S JK JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS.
18. The document dated 04.04.2013 did not by itself create any interest nor did the title pass upon execution of such document on 04.04.2013 but it was only after the registration on 02.07.2014 that the title in Katihar property passed from the Company in favour of the transferee. The submission of the contemnors however, is that by virtue of Section Full Judgment
HET RAM BENIWAL & ORS. Vs. RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS
It has been held by this Court that judges need not be protected and that they can take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that have to be protected. See Asharam M. Jain v. A. T. Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 125. Vilification of judges would lead to the destruction of the system of administration of justice. The statements made by the Full Judgment
VILAS V. SANGHAI Vs. SUMERMAL MISHRIMAL BAFNA & ANR
14. In the instant case, the alleged criminal contempt was of a subordinate Court and therefore, the action could have been taken on a reference made to the High Court by the subordinate Court or on a Motion made by the Advocate General, but the proceedings had been initiated in pursuance of an application submitted by Full Judgment
GYANI CHAND Vs. STATE OF A.P.
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. IN RE:- PIYUSH VERMA ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) JALAUN AT ORAI
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF U.P. - Contempt of Court
MAHESHWAR PERI & ORS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Shivsharan Bajpai & others Versus Shri Sanjay Singh & others
Bharat Singh Pawar Versus Shri Ashok Warnwal, Commissioner
S.N. BHARDWAJ Vs. ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS.
MUNICIPAL CORP.OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. BEST KAMGAR KARMACHARI & ORS.
C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Vs. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS.
The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Full Judgment