【 RNI-HIN/2013/51580 】
【 RNI-MPHIN/2009/31101 】
Jansamparklife.com
While SC issues contempt notice to petitioner-advocate for derogatory remarks on HC, Hey Supreme Court can we say F*** You?
12 Nov 2022
A petitioner-advocate and his Advocate-on-Record (AoR) on Friday invited the ire of the Supreme Court, which issued a contempt notice against them for their derogatory remarks against the Karnataka High Court. (Mohan Chandra P v. State of Karnataka and ors)
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna sought the response of petitioner Mohan Chandra P and AoR Vipin Kumar Jai after finding that derogatory and contemptuous observations were made against the Karnataka High Court in their plea.
It directed both of them to be present in Court on the next date of hearing, which is on December 2 this year.
"The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another v. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. (1955) 1 S.C.R. 757, has held that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court," the order stated.
Chandra's writ petition challenging the selection of the State's Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners was first dismissed by a single-judge of the High Court earlier this year.
In September, a Division Bench of the High Court found that no material was placed to support his averments, and imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on him for wasting the Court's time. This decision was challenged before the apex court.
Some of the averments made in the appeal that the top court took objection to included:
"...the reason assigned by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka for extraneous reason and to harass the respondents is unwarranted one and without any basis or foundation."
"...as a revenge imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5 lakh to the petitioner."
"Only to show favouritism towards the respondents and to harass the Petitioner and only to gain publicity, the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka has imposed exemplary cost for ulterior purpose."
The Bench stated in its order,
"The aforesaid observations are not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but highly contemptuous in nature."
Advocates Bipin Kalappa, Kumari Rashmi Rani, Rashi Jaiswal, Pratiush Pratik, Sakal Dev Sharma, Vineet Kumar, J Prasanth, N Ravi, Sanjay Prakash Goyatan, Krupal Krishnarao Paluskar, MN Krishma, and Dhanesh Leshdhan also represented the petitioner.
हिंदुस्तान ताज़ा सुर्खियाँ खबरे छूट गयी होत
Latest Updates
मध्यप्रदेश का पहला कोविड चाइल्ड केअर सेन्टर गढ़ाकोटा सागर तीसरी लहर के लिए तैयार
Missing forest worker Sheikh Junaid alive, photos surfaces on social media; ₹5Cr in debt
India remembers the deadly 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Mumbai police at high alert
Who is professor Ujjwal Kumar Kalla? These 2 MANIT research scholars sit on dharna everyday to make the matter hear
VIDEO VIRAL: Upset by her love marriage brother drags and beats sister on road in betul
Bhopal Police arrests Okendra Rana from Haryana, said 'have no fear of such cases' after case was registered
EOW raids residential premises of the Church of North India Jabalpur Diocese’s bishop, recovers crores & foreign currency
Mahakal Maharaja’s government- says CM Chauhan, gives the center stage seat to deity’s portrait
ज़ोहर की नमाज़ अदा की मुस्लिमों ने शिव मंदिर के प्रांगड़ में!!
EVM damaged at 3 polling booths in Bhopal, inconvenience to voters as polling booths changed at last hours
Hunt for new Bhopal Police Commissioner on as Makrand Deoskar applies for central deputation
नवाब मलिक की गिरफ्तारी के बाद अब शिवसेना नेता यशवंत जाधव के घर IT की छापेमारी
शिवराज ने कमलनाथ को कहा-खेत की मूली, जीतू पटवारी बोले-मान मर्यादा भूले शिवराज
सर्द अंधेरी रात में चोरों ने की मन्दिर का ताला तोड़ने की नाकाम कोशिश!
17 yr old boy jumps in front of train after failing in supplementary exams, dead body recovered from railway track
About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Rss Feed
Total Visitors :- 384651