Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI
Gujarat Operational Creditors Association Acting through Ms. Priti Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of contempt (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. submissions by applicant (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. We are confronted with a very unacquainted and disingenuous application seeking conviction of the respondents along with the advocates representing them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”).
2. The captioned Misc. Civil Application (consisting of 668 pages, including 111 pages of Memo) is filed by the applicant – Association under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The prayer clauses of the present application suggest that the applicant is praying for punishment for civil contempt of courts repeatedly committed between 02.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 of the judgment of three Judges Bench of this Court delivered in the case of District Development Officer vs. Maniben Virabhai (in Special Civil Application No. 642 of 1994 decided on 25.04.2000) and two Judges Bench in the case of Jakhariya Saleman Manek and Anr. vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Ors. (in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4 of 2023 decided o
Seeking extensions of interim orders does not constitute contempt of court; allegations against advocates and judges were found to be frivolous.
Unfounded allegations against judges constitute criminal contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
A Single Judge lacks jurisdiction to fully adjudicate civil contempt cases, limited to a prima facie inquiry, with final determinations reserved for a Division Bench after fulfilling statutory prereq....
The Regulation-making power cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not contemplated in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
