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

1995 Supreme(Ker) 203

M.M.PAREED PILLAY, P.SHANMUGAM
Vakkanad G. Nagappan, Advocate, Kottarakkara – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Mani, S/o Sukumaran, Trivandrum – Respondent


Judgment :-

PAREED PILLAY, C.J.

The question that arises for consideration is whether a party can initiate criminal contempt action before the High Court overlooking Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act Section 15(1) provides that in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate-General, or any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General Petitioner's contention is that as he has brought to the notice of this Court of the contempt committed by the respondents this Court can certainly take action de hors the consent in writing of the Advocate-General as provided under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act.

2. From a reading of Section 15(1) of the Act it can be discerned that consent in writing of the Advocate-General is the sine qua for initiating criminal contempt before the High Court by any person other than the Advocate-General. Initiation of criminal contempt by any person without the written consent of the Advocate-General cannot be entertained on the ground that sufficient information with regard to the contempt has been




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