SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 185

G.B.PATTANAIK, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Murray And Company – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kr. Newatia – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected vis-a-vis an infraction of majesty of law. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 has been engrafted in the Statute Book for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts and as such, it must be exercised with due care and caution and in cases of larger interest for due administration of justice.

2. In this matter, this Court by its Order dated 7th September, 1998, issued notice to the respondents for wrong assertion of facts pertaining to the sale of immovable property, in an affidavit filed before this Court.

3. Incidentally, the affidavit spoken of earlier, was filed by the Respondent No. 1 in an interlocutory application (IA No. 1/94) in a Transfer Petition being Civil No. 745//93 by way of an objection on behalf of the respondents herein against an application for clarification moved by the petitioners herein. The factual backdrop though not strictly relevant but is being noticed herein below for t













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top