Search Results for "aggravated contempt"

39 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 39 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court on its Own Motion Proceeds Against Individual for Scandalous Facebook Posts Targeting Judges. Court Stresses That Such Vicious Attacks on Judiciary Constitute Gross Criminal Contempt Undermining Rule of Law.

Suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings were initiated by the Bombay High Court against an individual who, through his Facebook profile, published a se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Discharges Respondents in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt for Alleged Willful Disobedience of Court Orders. Court holds that mere breach of undertaking does not constitute criminal contempt unless it scandalizes or lowers authority of court.

The High Court of Bombay initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against respondent no.1 (M.N. Navale, President of Sinhgad Technical Educati...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Issues Rule in Criminal Contempt Reference Against Accused for Threatening and Scandalizing Metropolitan Magistrate. Persistent Harassment, Intimidation, and Obstructing Judicial Proceedings Prima Facie Constitute Criminal Contempt Under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The matter arose from a criminal contempt reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, under Section 15(2) of the Cont...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2 OF 2015

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a direction in an order dated 21.10.2013, passed in Company Application (L) ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Respondents in Contempt for Breach of Injunction Order. Resolutions Increasing Authorised Capital and Alloting Shares While Restrained from Exercising Rights on Shares Amount to Wilful Disobedience.

The appeal arose from Suit No.3121 of 2004, where the appellants (original plaintiffs, Gopal L. Raheja & Anr.) claimed that the respondents (original ...