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

2005 Supreme(Guj) 307

R.S.GARG, RAVI R.TRIPATHI
SUO-MOTU – Appellant
Versus
P. C. PANDYA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: R.C.KAKKAD, SUO MOTU

R. S. GARG, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the noticee. The noticee/contemner is also in attendance.

( 2 ) IT is to be recorded that on 21. 3. 2005, when Division Bench of this Court was hearing the arguments of the parties in Special Civil Application No. 3928 of 2005, a mobile phone started ringing in the Court. On inquiries, the holder of the mobile phone informed that he is Mr. Pravinkumar C. Pandya, Chief Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board. The Court, taking a serious view of the matter and as the proceedings were disturbed, recorded its shock and surprise after watching the conduct of the said Chief Engineer. Telephone set was immediately seized and notice was directed to be issued to Mr. Pravinkumar C. Pandya as to why he should not be awarded appropriate punishment for causing disturbance in the Court proceedings.

( 3 ) THE noticee has submitted his reply. According to him, he has the highest regard for the Court and would never commit any intentional act to disturb the Court proceedings, he tendered his apology in his first reply dated 3rd April, 2004. He has again submitted his additional reply/supporting affidavit dated 4th April, 2004. He has submitted that he had












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