Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
High Court of Madras, High Court, Madras – Appellant
Versus
P. Angamuthu – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Suo Motu Criminal Contempt proceedings initiated against the Contemnors herein as per the order of this Court made in W.P.No.22410 of 2018 dated 05.09.2018.]
The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.12.2022 instituted Suo Motu Criminal Cont.P.No.2493 of 2022.
2. The learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with W.P.No.22410 of 2018, found that the fake High Court interim orders were produced before the Bailiff while executing a Civil Court decree. Consequently, Suo Motu Criminal Contempt proceeding was initiated vide order dated 05.09.2018 and the matter was referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench initiated Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No.2493 of 2022 and framed the following charges:-
2. That, you, Angamuthu (1st contemnor), Muruganandam (3rd contemnor), Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan (4th contemnor) and Thangamani (5th contemnor) along with the deceased Sundaram submitted the photocopies of the following three fake orders of this Court, all dated 12.03.2018 to the bailiff, when he came for executing the decree as set out above.
i.
Contempt of court conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; courts have inherent power to ensure justice, unaffected by procedural timelines in cases of fraud.
The act of fabricating and filing documents on behalf of the Union of India by an individual constitutes criminal contempt and is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
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....
Courts Act is very wide and squarely covers all the aforesaid acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3. In view of the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed criminal contempt as contemplated under t....
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The judgment highlights the gravity of contempt for derogatory statements against judicial authority, emphasizing accountability under the Contempt of Courts 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
